Kansas Homophobic Bill: DEAD!

[Quantum Windbag]

If you read the PDF you linked to, you would know that it does exactly as the linked article stated it does. Page 2 starting at line 6.

The part where it says that a business is required to find someone else to provide the services requested?

Dayam, that makes you wrong, again.

And if that one I individual is the only one that can provide that service...like, oh say, a doctor or pharmacist? Maybe the one business property assessor employed by the city or county? The one building inspector, the only septic service?

Who defines undue hardship?

If this law applied to any group but gays, any minority at all, would you still be okay with it?

Sent from my KFSOWI using Tapatalk

How many pharmacists perform weddings?

 

[GreenBean]

Yes, since they wrote a Constitution that progresses with its populace. When they wrote it, they never expected blacks and women to be equal to landowning white men...and yet here we are.

YOU have no shame, YOU have no business insulting an entire race of people by your pathetic attempt to link their Just and Noble Cause to your Sexual Perversions. Stop picking on the Black People and kindly stopping hurling insults at them - pretending as if they somehow support your perverted agenda.

So far as the Constitution, the principle Author -good old Tommy Jefferson once wrote a law calling for the Castration of sodomites - Don't know how he proposed to deal with lesbos however

Good old Tommy also owned slaves.

Seawytch's point stands.

Yes he did , and he had along term relationship with one of them - Sally Hemings with whom he fathered several Children. Seahags point does not stand

Civil Rights of Ethnic Minorities is relevant to Tribalism - Perverts come from all "tribes" - Just like Mongoloids . However Mongoloids are only Mentally Retarded - Homos are sexually retarded as well as degenerate and psychotic to varying degrees.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Then why doesn't the same sex marriage movement include their poly-amorous brethren in the discussion? Because they know it would lose them their margin of support.

and the marriage contract does not apply to them, unless modified by the legislatures in question. there is no constitutional mandate to force states to do it by judicial fiat.

What does polygamy and gay marriage have to do with each other? You cant argue agains gay marriage using polygamy as the basis of your argument. Gay marriage is between 2 consenting adults. The marriage contract does apply to them. The 14th amendment is the constitutional mandate.

No, it doesn't unless modified by the legislature, where the power resides, not with the courts. There is no Right to same sex marriage, it is something that can be allowed by legislatures.

No one ever said there was.

In fact, there’s no such thing as ‘same-sex marriage.’

All states have but one marriage law, contract law, marriage contracts that both same- and opposite-sex couples are eligible to enter into.

The 14th Amendment requires the states to allow American citizens, residents of the states, access to all of a state’s laws, including marriage law. When the states contrive un-Constitutional measures to prevent same-sex couples from accessing the marriage law they’re eligible to participate in, such as Utah’s Amendment 3, those states violate the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment:

[T]he Supreme Court has considered analogous questions that involve the tension between these two values in other cases. See, e.g., Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1 (1967) (balancing the state’s right to regulate marriage against the individual’s right to equal protection and due process under the law). In these cases, the Court has held that the Fourteenth Amendment requires that individual rights take precedence over states’ rights where these two interests are in conflict. See id. at 7 (holding that a state’s power to regulate marriage is limited by the Fourteenth Amendment).

Utah’s Amendment 3, as with other similar measures invalidated by the courts, lacks a rational basis, lacks compelling evidence in support, and pursues no proper legislative end; it seeks only to make gay Americans different from everyone else, in violation of the 14th Amendment.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

YOU have no shame, YOU have no business insulting an entire race of people by your pathetic attempt to link their Just and Noble Cause to your Sexual Perversions. Stop picking on the Black People and kindly stopping hurling insults at them - pretending as if they somehow support your perverted agenda.

So far as the Constitution, the principle Author -good old Tommy Jefferson once wrote a law calling for the Castration of sodomites - Don't know how he proposed to deal with lesbos however

Good old Tommy also owned slaves.

Seawytch's point stands.

Yes he did , and he had along term relationship with one of them - Sally Hemings with whom he fathered several Children. Seahags point does not stand

Civil Rights of Ethnic Minorities is relevant to Tribalism - Perverts come from all "tribes" - Just like Mongoloids . However Mongoloids are only Mentally Retarded - Homos are sexually retarded as well as degenerate and psychotic to varying degrees.

And it’s this type of ignorance, stupidity, and hatred exhibited by you and others on the social right the 14th Amendment guards against.

 

[Asclepias]

What does polygamy and gay marriage have to do with each other? You cant argue agains gay marriage using polygamy as the basis of your argument. Gay marriage is between 2 consenting adults. The marriage contract does apply to them. The 14th amendment is the constitutional mandate.

No, it doesn't unless modified by the legislature, where the power resides, not with the courts. There is no Right to same sex marriage, it is something that can be allowed by legislatures.

No one ever said there was.

In fact, there’s no such thing as ‘same-sex marriage.’

All states have but one marriage law, contract law, marriage contracts that both same- and opposite-sex couples are eligible to enter into.

The 14th Amendment requires the states to allow American citizens, residents of the states, access to all of a state’s laws, including marriage law. When the states contrive un-Constitutional measures to prevent same-sex couples from accessing the marriage law they’re eligible to participate in, such as Utah’s Amendment 3, those states violate the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment:

[T]he Supreme Court has considered analogous questions that involve the tension between these two values in other cases. See, e.g., Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1 (1967) (balancing the state’s right to regulate marriage against the individual’s right to equal protection and due process under the law). In these cases, the Court has held that the Fourteenth Amendment requires that individual rights take precedence over states’ rights where these two interests are in conflict. See id. at 7 (holding that a state’s power to regulate marriage is limited by the Fourteenth Amendment).

Utah’s Amendment 3, as with other similar measures invalidated by the courts, lacks a rational basis, lacks compelling evidence in support, and pursues no proper legislative end; it seeks only to make gay Americans different from everyone else, in violation of the 14th Amendment.

Someone needs to tattoo a big #14 on Martys forehead so everytime he starts getting illogical about state rights we can remind him to go look in the mirror.

 

[GreenBean]

Good old Tommy also owned slaves.

Seawytch's point stands.

Yes he did , and he had along term relationship with one of them - Sally Hemings with whom he fathered several Children. Seahags point does not stand

Civil Rights of Ethnic Minorities is relevant to Tribalism - Perverts come from all "tribes" - Just like Mongoloids . However Mongoloids are only Mentally Retarded - Homos are sexually retarded as well as degenerate and psychotic to varying degrees.

And it’s this type of ignorance, stupidity, and hatred exhibited by you and others on the social right the 14th Amendment guards against.

The 14th amendment addresses citizenship rights and equal protection under the law, and was proposed in response to issues related to former slaves following the American Civil War.


The Equal Protection Clause ...

1986 Bowers v. Hardwick SCOTUS held that laws criminalizing sodomy were constitutional

In Romer v. Evans SCOTUS struck down a Colorado law aimed at denying homosexuals "minority status, quota preferences, protected status or [a] claim of discrimination." The Court simply rejected as "implausible" the argument that the amendment would not deprive homosexuals of general protections provided to everyone else , it did NOT create a special protected status for faggots.

 

[Stephanie]

homosexuals have nothing to proud about people feel they need laws to be protected from them now

It's just like the thing with the Boys Scouts.....they have become so militant in people lives and expect 300 million people in this country to BOW down to them
just look at the TITLE of this thread
awful

 

[martybegan]

No, it doesn't unless modified by the legislature, where the power resides, not with the courts. There is no Right to same sex marriage, it is something that can be allowed by legislatures.

No one ever said there was.

In fact, there’s no such thing as ‘same-sex marriage.’

All states have but one marriage law, contract law, marriage contracts that both same- and opposite-sex couples are eligible to enter into.

The 14th Amendment requires the states to allow American citizens, residents of the states, access to all of a state’s laws, including marriage law. When the states contrive un-Constitutional measures to prevent same-sex couples from accessing the marriage law they’re eligible to participate in, such as Utah’s Amendment 3, those states violate the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment:

[T]he Supreme Court has considered analogous questions that involve the tension between these two values in other cases. See, e.g., Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1 (1967) (balancing the state’s right to regulate marriage against the individual’s right to equal protection and due process under the law). In these cases, the Court has held that the Fourteenth Amendment requires that individual rights take precedence over states’ rights where these two interests are in conflict. See id. at 7 (holding that a state’s power to regulate marriage is limited by the Fourteenth Amendment).

Utah’s Amendment 3, as with other similar measures invalidated by the courts, lacks a rational basis, lacks compelling evidence in support, and pursues no proper legislative end; it seeks only to make gay Americans different from everyone else, in violation of the 14th Amendment.

Someone needs to tattoo a big #14 on Martys forehead so everytime he starts getting illogical about state rights we can remind him to go look in the mirror.

And someone needs to remind people who harp on the 14th amendment so much as being untouchable are usually perfectly fine with ignoring the 2nd amendment.

But we all know progressives are a bunch of fucking hypocrites anyway.

 

[martybegan]

What does polygamy and gay marriage have to do with each other? You cant argue agains gay marriage using polygamy as the basis of your argument. Gay marriage is between 2 consenting adults. The marriage contract does apply to them. The 14th amendment is the constitutional mandate.

No, it doesn't unless modified by the legislature, where the power resides, not with the courts. There is no Right to same sex marriage, it is something that can be allowed by legislatures.

No one ever said there was.

In fact, there’s no such thing as ‘same-sex marriage.’

All states have but one marriage law, contract law, marriage contracts that both same- and opposite-sex couples are eligible to enter into.

The 14th Amendment requires the states to allow American citizens, residents of the states, access to all of a state’s laws, including marriage law. When the states contrive un-Constitutional measures to prevent same-sex couples from accessing the marriage law they’re eligible to participate in, such as Utah’s Amendment 3, those states violate the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment:

[T]he Supreme Court has considered analogous questions that involve the tension between these two values in other cases. See, e.g., Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1 (1967) (balancing the state’s right to regulate marriage against the individual’s right to equal protection and due process under the law). In these cases, the Court has held that the Fourteenth Amendment requires that individual rights take precedence over states’ rights where these two interests are in conflict. See id. at 7 (holding that a state’s power to regulate marriage is limited by the Fourteenth Amendment).

Utah’s Amendment 3, as with other similar measures invalidated by the courts, lacks a rational basis, lacks compelling evidence in support, and pursues no proper legislative end; it seeks only to make gay Americans different from everyone else, in violation of the 14th Amendment.

Show me one place in history prior to the past 20 years or so where same sex people could enter into a marriage contract.

 

[Seawytch]

Yes he did , and he had along term relationship with one of them - Sally Hemings with whom he fathered several Children. Seahags point does not stand

Civil Rights of Ethnic Minorities is relevant to Tribalism - Perverts come from all "tribes" - Just like Mongoloids . However Mongoloids are only Mentally Retarded - Homos are sexually retarded as well as degenerate and psychotic to varying degrees.

And it’s this type of ignorance, stupidity, and hatred exhibited by you and others on the social right the 14th Amendment guards against.

The 14th amendment addresses citizenship rights and equal protection under the law, and was proposed in response to issues related to former slaves following the American Civil War.


The Equal Protection Clause ...

1986 Bowers v. Hardwick SCOTUS held that laws criminalizing sodomy were constitutional

In Romer v. Evans SCOTUS struck down a Colorado law aimed at denying homosexuals "minority status, quota preferences, protected status or [a] claim of discrimination." The Court simply rejected as "implausible" the argument that the amendment would not deprive homosexuals of general protections provided to everyone else , it did NOT create a special protected status for faggots.

Please point out exactly where race is mentioned in the 14th Amendment. Oh yeah...it's not.

And despite you're dark red temper tantrum, actual Federal Judges are disagreeing with you left and right.

 

[GreenBean]

And it’s this type of ignorance, stupidity, and hatred exhibited by you and others on the social right the 14th Amendment guards against.

The 14th amendment addresses citizenship rights and equal protection under the law, and was proposed in response to issues related to former slaves following the American Civil War.


The Equal Protection Clause ...

1986 Bowers v. Hardwick SCOTUS held that laws criminalizing sodomy were constitutional

In Romer v. Evans SCOTUS struck down a Colorado law aimed at denying homosexuals "minority status, quota preferences, protected status or [a] claim of discrimination." The Court simply rejected as "implausible" the argument that the amendment would not deprive homosexuals of general protections provided to everyone else , it did NOT create a special protected status for faggots.

Please point out exactly where race is mentioned in the 14th Amendment. Oh yeah...it's not.

And despite you're dark red temper tantrum, actual Federal Judges are disagreeing with you left and right.

The Equal Protection Clause of the 14th amendment of the U.S. Constitution prohibits states from denying any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. It was written primarily for the protection of former Negro Slaves but is also Apropos to all ethnic and religious minorities ... queers and dykes are members of all ethnic and religous minorities and are afforded the same protection under this ammendment as any others - they are not a "Special Class" no more than mongoloids, pedophiles or martians.

 

[Seawytch]

The 14th amendment addresses citizenship rights and equal protection under the law, and was proposed in response to issues related to former slaves following the American Civil War.


The Equal Protection Clause ...

1986 Bowers v. Hardwick SCOTUS held that laws criminalizing sodomy were constitutional

In Romer v. Evans SCOTUS struck down a Colorado law aimed at denying homosexuals "minority status, quota preferences, protected status or [a] claim of discrimination." The Court simply rejected as "implausible" the argument that the amendment would not deprive homosexuals of general protections provided to everyone else , it did NOT create a special protected status for faggots.

Please point out exactly where race is mentioned in the 14th Amendment. Oh yeah...it's not.

And despite you're dark red temper tantrum, actual Federal Judges are disagreeing with you left and right.

The Equal Protection Clause of the 14th amendment of the U.S. Constitution prohibits states from denying any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. It was written primarily for the protection of former Negro Slaves but is also Apropos to all ethnic and religious minorities ... queers and dykes are members of all ethnic and religous minorities and are afforded the same protection under this ammendment as any others - they are not a "Special Class" no more than mongoloids, pedophiles or martians.

So you can't point it out either. That's because it's not there Beanie. Race is not mentioned in the 14th Amendment. Gender is (which is why we needed the 19th).

Judge after judge are finding in favor of marriage equality and citing the 14th Amendment.

“Equal protection is at the very heart of our legal system and central to our consent to be governed. It is not a scarce commodity to be meted out begrudgingly or in short portions. Therefore, the majority view in Oklahoma must give way to individual constitutional rights,” U.S. District Judge Terence Kern

“The court hereby declares that Amendment 3 is unconstitutional because it denies the Plaintiffs their rights to due process and equal protection under the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution,” Judge Robert J. Shelby, of the United States District Court for the District of Utah

“The court is compelled to conclude that Virginia’s Marriage Laws unconstitutionally deny Virginia’s gay and lesbian citizens the fundamental freedom to choose to marry. Government interests in perpetuating traditions, shielding state matters from federal interference, and favoring one model of parenting over others must yield to this country’s cherished protections that ensure the exercise of the private choices of the individual citizen regarding love and family,” Judge Arenda Wright Allen, Virgina

 

[GreenBean]

Please point out exactly where race is mentioned in the 14th Amendment. Oh yeah...it's not.

And despite you're dark red temper tantrum, actual Federal Judges are disagreeing with you left and right.

The Equal Protection Clause of the 14th amendment of the U.S. Constitution prohibits states from denying any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. It was written primarily for the protection of former Negro Slaves but is also Apropos to all ethnic and religious minorities ... queers and dykes are members of all ethnic and religous minorities and are afforded the same protection under this ammendment as any others - they are not a "Special Class" no more than mongoloids, pedophiles or martians.

So you can't point it out either. That's because it's not there Beanie. Race is not mentioned in the 14th Amendment. Gender is (which is why we needed the 19th).

Judge after judge are finding in favor of marriage equality and citing the 14th Amendment.

“Equal protection is at the very heart of our legal system and central to our consent to be governed. It is not a scarce commodity to be meted out begrudgingly or in short portions. Therefore, the majority view in Oklahoma must give way to individual constitutional rights,” U.S. District Judge Terence Kern

“The court hereby declares that Amendment 3 is unconstitutional because it denies the Plaintiffs their rights to due process and equal protection under the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution,” Judge Robert J. Shelby, of the United States District Court for the District of Utah

“The court is compelled to conclude that Virginia’s Marriage Laws unconstitutionally deny Virginia’s gay and lesbian citizens the fundamental freedom to choose to marry. Government interests in perpetuating traditions, shielding state matters from federal interference, and favoring one model of parenting over others must yield to this country’s cherished protections that ensure the exercise of the private choices of the individual citizen regarding love and family,” Judge Arenda Wright Allen, Virgina

So you can't point it out either. That's because it's not there Beanie. Race is not mentioned in the 14th Amendment. Gender is (which is why we needed the 19th).

Unlike you Seahag- I don't invent facts to suit my agenda - no race is not mentioned - but that is not relevant. It was written primarily for the protection of former Negro Slaves but is also Apropos to all ethnic and religious minorities ... queers and dykes are members of all ethnic and religous minorities and are afforded the same protection under this ammendment as any others - they are not a "Special Class"

Judge after judge are finding in favor of marriage equality and citing the 14th Amendment.

I'm glad - I've stated in the past - even perverts are entitled to equal protection under the law and I support their rights to the protections and legal benefits marriage allows. That still does not make the Mentally Ill aka Homosexuals a protected class and in no way prohibits a private business from refusing to service them.

OT: This can't be the same SEAHAG that was on the Disney thread - not possible - She/It was a Mental Midget and a Dullard This SeaHag on this thread actually has something going for it.

 

[Seawytch]

The Equal Protection Clause of the 14th amendment of the U.S. Constitution prohibits states from denying any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. It was written primarily for the protection of former Negro Slaves but is also Apropos to all ethnic and religious minorities ... queers and dykes are members of all ethnic and religous minorities and are afforded the same protection under this ammendment as any others - they are not a "Special Class" no more than mongoloids, pedophiles or martians.

So you can't point it out either. That's because it's not there Beanie. Race is not mentioned in the 14th Amendment. Gender is (which is why we needed the 19th).

Judge after judge are finding in favor of marriage equality and citing the 14th Amendment.

“Equal protection is at the very heart of our legal system and central to our consent to be governed. It is not a scarce commodity to be meted out begrudgingly or in short portions. Therefore, the majority view in Oklahoma must give way to individual constitutional rights,” U.S. District Judge Terence Kern

“The court hereby declares that Amendment 3 is unconstitutional because it denies the Plaintiffs their rights to due process and equal protection under the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution,” Judge Robert J. Shelby, of the United States District Court for the District of Utah

“The court is compelled to conclude that Virginia’s Marriage Laws unconstitutionally deny Virginia’s gay and lesbian citizens the fundamental freedom to choose to marry. Government interests in perpetuating traditions, shielding state matters from federal interference, and favoring one model of parenting over others must yield to this country’s cherished protections that ensure the exercise of the private choices of the individual citizen regarding love and family,” Judge Arenda Wright Allen, Virgina

So you can't point it out either. That's because it's not there Beanie. Race is not mentioned in the 14th Amendment. Gender is (which is why we needed the 19th).

Unlike you Seahag- I don't invent facts to suit my agenda - no race is not mentioned - but that is not relevant. It was written primarily for the protection of former Negro Slaves but is also Apropos to all ethnic and religious minorities ... queers and dykes are members of all ethnic and religous minorities and are afforded the same protection under this ammendment as any others - they are not a "Special Class"

Judge after judge are finding in favor of marriage equality and citing the 14th Amendment.

I'm glad - I've stated in the past - even perverts are entitled to equal protection under the law and I support their rights to the protections and legal benefits marriage allows. That still does not make the Mentally Ill aka Homosexuals a protected class and in no way prohibits a private business from refusing to service them.

Irrelevant. No matter what the "original intent" was, race is not mentioned, therefore it applies to all regardless of race...which is why it keeps getting cited in court rulings against anti gay marriage laws.

Public Accommodation laws are different than marriage equality and in almost half the states they apply to gays. If you want a "right to refuse gays service" sign, you can't live in those states.

 

[AceRothstein]

homosexuals have nothing to proud about people feel they need laws to be protected from them now

It's just like the thing with the Boys Scouts.....they have become so militant in people lives and expect 300 million people in this country to BOW down to them
just look at the TITLE of this thread
awful

Why would anyone feel the need to be "protected" from homosexuals?

 

[WorldWatcher]

That still does not make the Mentally Ill aka Homosexuals a protected class and in no way prohibits a private business from refusing to service them.

Being a homoseuxal is a protected class in the states listed below and prohibit private businesses from refusing them service based on that classification.

California
Colorado
Connecticut
District of Columbia
Hawaii
Hawaii
Illinois
Iowa
Maine
Maryland
Massachusetts
Minnesota
Nevada
New Hampshire
New Jersey
New Mexico
New York
Oregon
Rhode Island
Vermont
Washington
Wisconsin​

https://www.hrc.org/resources/entry/lgbt-inclusive-public-accommodations-laws1


>>>>>

 

[WorldWatcher]

homosexuals have nothing to proud about people feel they need laws to be protected from them now

It's just like the thing with the Boys Scouts.....they have become so militant in people lives and expect 300 million people in this country to BOW down to them
just look at the TITLE of this thread
awful

Why would anyone feel the need to be "protected" from homosexuals?

I'm just wondering when the Boy Scouts became militant and expected people to bow to them.




>>>>

 

[GreenBean]

So you can't point it out either. That's because it's not there Beanie. Race is not mentioned in the 14th Amendment. Gender is (which is why we needed the 19th).

Judge after judge are finding in favor of marriage equality and citing the 14th Amendment.

“Equal protection is at the very heart of our legal system and central to our consent to be governed. It is not a scarce commodity to be meted out begrudgingly or in short portions. Therefore, the majority view in Oklahoma must give way to individual constitutional rights,” U.S. District Judge Terence Kern

“The court hereby declares that Amendment 3 is unconstitutional because it denies the Plaintiffs their rights to due process and equal protection under the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution,” Judge Robert J. Shelby, of the United States District Court for the District of Utah

“The court is compelled to conclude that Virginia’s Marriage Laws unconstitutionally deny Virginia’s gay and lesbian citizens the fundamental freedom to choose to marry. Government interests in perpetuating traditions, shielding state matters from federal interference, and favoring one model of parenting over others must yield to this country’s cherished protections that ensure the exercise of the private choices of the individual citizen regarding love and family,” Judge Arenda Wright Allen, Virgina

Unlike you Seahag- I don't invent facts to suit my agenda - no race is not mentioned - but that is not relevant. It was written primarily for the protection of former Negro Slaves but is also Apropos to all ethnic and religious minorities ... queers and dykes are members of all ethnic and religous minorities and are afforded the same protection under this ammendment as any others - they are not a "Special Class"

Judge after judge are finding in favor of marriage equality and citing the 14th Amendment.

I'm glad - I've stated in the past - even perverts are entitled to equal protection under the law and I support their rights to the protections and legal benefits marriage allows. That still does not make the Mentally Ill aka Homosexuals a protected class and in no way prohibits a private business from refusing to service them.

Irrelevant. No matter what the "original intent" was, race is not mentioned, therefore it applies to all regardless of race...which is why it keeps getting cited in court rulings against anti gay marriage laws.

Public Accommodation laws are different than marriage equality and in almost half the states they apply to gays. If you want a "right to refuse gays service" sign, you can't live in those states.

Cited in court rulings against anti gay marriage laws - which is only fair.

Being a businessman myself - I would never refuse a customer because they were Gay - their money is just as green as anyone elses. I would never turn down a respectable gay for a job , if they posses the talent I need and are able to keep their perversion out of the work place . That's just sound business practice .

Any business that wants to refuse service or products to people based on personal bias is not a very well run business - but they should have that option if their convictions are that strong.


Getting back to sub OP :

no race is not mentioned - but that is not relevant. It was written primarily for the protection of former Negro Slaves but is also Apropos to all ethnic and religious minorities ... queers and dykes are members of all ethnic and religous minorities and are afforded the same protection under this ammendment as any others - they are not a "Special Class"

.... But still afforded the same protections as other sane citizens .

 

[GreenBean]

homosexuals have nothing to proud about people feel they need laws to be protected from them now

It's just like the thing with the Boys Scouts.....they have become so militant in people lives and expect 300 million people in this country to BOW down to them
just look at the TITLE of this thread
awful

Why would anyone feel the need to be "protected" from homosexuals?

I'm must wondering when the Boy Scouts became militant and expected people to bow to them.




>>>>

I beleive you are taking advantage of his mis wording. You know darn well he wasn't referring to the Boy scouts with the phrase "bow to them" - he was referring to the Fruit Cake Mob and their persecution of the Boy Scouts

In June of 2000 the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the Boy Scouts of America are exempt from state laws that bar anti-gay discrimination. ....

The Boy Scouts of America were forced remove or alter the charters of thousands of scout troops from public schools after the ACLU threatened to sue taxpayer-funded institutions that charter BSA units. The ACLU sent a letter to the Boy Scouts of America threatening legal action against any and all public schools and/or other governmental agencies that support Boy Scout groups . Defending against the wave of ACLU lawsuits has cost schools many thousands of dollars. The ACLU threat also hampers organizations such as fire departments, and police departments from holding charters for scouting units.

War against the Boy Scouts.

 

[WorldWatcher]

>>>>

I beleive you are taking advantage of his mis wording. You know darn well he wasn't referring to the Boy scouts with the phrase "bow to them" - he was referring to the Fruit Cake Mob and their persecution of the Boy Scouts

Of course I was, hence the smiley.



>>>>