Let the States Decide- ALA Supreme Court Justice urges Defiance- Gay Marraige

[Skylar]

Bullshit reply

Black and Gay are different issues. There were laws saying what blacks could and could not do. There is no such law for gays, gays can do exactly the same things straights can. It's a false analogy. You can like it or not, but I'm not explaining one issue in relation to a completely different issue.

Incorrect.

There were laws that controlled the lives of gay Americans as well, laws that violated their civil rights just as the rights of African-Americans were violated.

For example, in Colorado, Amendment 2 made it illegal for LGBT residents of that state to avail themselves of anti-discrimination laws. The Colorado Supreme Court struck down that measure as a violation of the 14th Amendment, whose ruling was affirmed by the US Supreme Court (Romer v. Evans).

In Texas it was illegal for consenting adult gay men to engage in sex in the privacy of their own homes. The Texas law was likewise invalidated by the Supreme Court for violating the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment (Lawrence v. Texas).

Just as African-Americans were compelled to fight for their civil rights in the courts a generation ago to strike down discriminatory, un-Constitutional measures, so too must gay Americans fight for their civil rights today; against unjust measures violating the equal protection rights of same-sex couples.

False analogy

No, it isn't. The Supreme Court itself has cited Loving V. Virginia as an example of the constitutional guarantees that state marriage laws are subject to when discussing gay marriage.

ROFLMNAO!


No... it hasn't.

Yes, it has.

Subject to certain constitutional guarantees, see, e.g., Loving v. Virginia, 388 U. S. 1, “regulation of domestic relations” is “an area that has long been regarded as a virtually exclusive province of the States,” Sosna v. Iowa, 419 U. S. 393.

Winsdor v. US

And note you don't dispute any of my citations of Romer v Evans citing case after case involving racial discrimination when explaining how laws targeting gays were invalid.

Smart that. As you'd be wrong then too.

 

[Skylar]

The statutory restrictions and state constitution amendments declaring that marriage was only one man and one woman that almost universally came after Hawaii extended civil union recognition to same sex couples were done to prevent gays from entering marriage.

Yes.

And thus they fail the standards set in Romer.

There's a reason why Scalia has affirmed the court's position on state same sex marriage bans is 'beyond mistaking'. And why Scalia has concluded that the court overturning state same sex marriage bans is 'inevitable'.

 

[Syriusly]

Negatory there big fella...

Sodomy laws in the United States - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

Actually, when it comes to civil rights in this country, it's how things have been done. What's new is shit like the House fucking suing the President instead of legislating.

Actually, when it comes to civil rights in this country, it's how things have been done. What's new is shit like the House fucking suing the President instead of legislating.

Or the President suing Arizona instead of administering the law.

Oh look at you ignoring your wrongness on sodomy laws.

Oh look, me not embarassing you.

Hardwick became hostile and threatened to have officers fired for entering his home.[citation needed] Both men were placed under arrest for sodomy, which was defined in Georgia law to include both oral sex and anal sex between members of the same or opposite sex.[5] The local district attorney elected not to present the charge to the grand jury, which would have been a prerequisite to any trial or punishment for the offense. Hardwick then sued Michael Bowers, the attorney general of Georgia, in federal court for a declaration that the state's sodomy law was invalid. He charged that as an active homosexual, he was liable to eventually be prosecuted for his activities.]

You understand they were not enforced, right? The only reason they became an issue is because the fags ginned up a case they could bring. OTherwise no one cared. Fags, causing trouble and disease wherever they go.

Um, you jumped from Texas to Georgia? Texas outlawed only gay anal and oral sex, not heterosexual and yes, someone was arrested for it, hence Lawrence v Texas.

I was not specific on Texas law. I made a generalization, and I was correct. Deal with it.
The case was a set up for the fags to get it overturned.

Oh lets look again at the exact train of posts:
1) Rabbi: You are incorrect. The Texas statute made male sodomy a crime. It didnt matter if you were gay or straight. Similarly with all the other examples.

2) Seawitch Negatory there big fella...Sodomy laws in the United States - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

3) Rabbi: You understand they were not enforced, right? The only reason they became an issue is because the fags ginned up a case they could bring. OTherwise no one cared. Fags, causing trouble and disease wherever they go.

You referred to the Texas Statute- and then you claimed that Sodomy laws were not enforced- and then you lied and claimed that 'fags ginned up a case they could bring'.

Lawrence v. Texas is the 'case' that made sodomy illegal. You said "Texas" and you then lied about homosexuals 'ginning' up the case there.

Rather a typical homophobic post- make a false claim- and then try to pretend that you didn't make it.

 

[Syriusly]

Oh, is that the excuse the Left uses to subvert the will of the people?

In fact, every time I hear that idiocy, "we are not a democracy, we're a republic" I want to scream because the person saying it thinks their educated when in fact they're a buffoon. We're actually both. .

Here is what the claim was

We are a democracy, if the majority speaks, they get their way. Period.

We are not that kind of democracy- we are arguably a Constitutional Democratic Republic- i.e. our entire system of government is determined by our Constitution, we use a Democratic process(but not direct Democracy) to elect our representatives.

But to say simply 'we are a Democracy' is at best incomplete and when arguing that the majority gets whatever it wants, is just totally false.

Pure democracies and pure republics are both oppressive forms of government for the reasons I gave. Right now the pendulum is swung too far toward republicanism. Wisconsin is a good example. The people voted to restrict public unions and the unions had it stopped in the courts. When we reach the point that the minority can have any law they don't like overturned in court, then democracy is frustrated, the people believing an oligarchy runs the country and their voice doesn't count. Democracy should have the final word unless there's a grievous breech in civil liberties. And some states allowing gay marriage while others don't doesn't fit that description.

Rights exist and are protected for the sake of the minority. The majority rarely has to have its rights protected. They can act in their own interests. But the minority is where rights are truly tested, where they actually need protecting.

The idea that our republic is broken if the rights of minorities are protected is nonsense.

The only problem is when rights have no limits and begin to crowd out democracy and the right of the people to shape the government they live under. We are becoming less a government by the people and more a government by the judges. When the pendulum swings to far to republicanism, it becomes tyranny because laws are no longer decided by the democratic process, but rather by what a judge can be convinced the law should be. That's not America.

Yet you can't think of specific examples of Republican judicial activism, you just know it happened...

Judicial activism is in the eyes of the beholder. And courts are theoretically neither Republican or Democratic

When Republicans disagree with a courts ruling they call it 'judicial activism'- when they agree with the ruling they applaud the judge.

Oh and Democrats do much the same thing, just that 'judicial activism' is more of a Conservative buzz phrase

The following are cited as examples of judicial activism:

• Brown v. Board of Education – 1954 Supreme Court ruling ordering the desegregation of public schools.[16]
• Roe v. Wade – 1973 Supreme Court ruling decriminalizing abortion.[17]
• Bush v. Gore – The United States Supreme Court case between the major-party candidates in the 2000 presidential election, George W. Bush and Al Gore. The judges voted 5-4 to halt the recount of ballots in Florida and, as a result, George Bush was elected President.[18]
• Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission – 2010 Supreme Court decision declaring Congressionally enacted limitations on corporate political spending and transparency as unconstitutional restrictions on free speech.[19][20]
• Hollingsworth v. Perry – 2013 decision by federal judge Vaughn R. Walker overturning California's constitutional amendment to ban same-sex marriage.[21]

 

[Syriusly]

.

Black and Gay are different issues. There were laws saying what blacks could and could not do. There is no such law for gays, gays can do exactly the same things straights can. It's a false analogy. You can like it or not, but I'm not explaining one issue in relation to a completely different issue.

Incorrect.

There were laws that controlled the lives of gay Americans as well, laws that violated their civil rights just as the rights of African-Americans were violated.

For example, in Colorado, Amendment 2 made it illegal for LGBT residents of that state to avail themselves of anti-discrimination laws. The Colorado Supreme Court struck down that measure as a violation of the 14th Amendment, whose ruling was affirmed by the US Supreme Court (Romer v. Evans).

In Texas it was illegal for consenting adult gay men to engage in sex in the privacy of their own homes. The Texas law was likewise invalidated by the Supreme Court for violating the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment (Lawrence v. Texas).

Just as African-Americans were compelled to fight for their civil rights in the courts a generation ago to strike down discriminatory, un-Constitutional measures, so too must gay Americans fight for their civil rights today; against unjust measures violating the equal protection rights of same-sex couples.

You are incorrect. The Texas statute made male sodomy a crime. It didnt matter if you were gay or straight. Similarly with all the other examples.

Well, how many straights were arrested and charged with that statute?

How many gays were? Virtually none.

And the ones who were wanted to be to make the point.
.

Please feel free to show how the defendants in Lawrence v. Kansas 'wanted to be to make the point'

The police responded to a false report, entered Lawrence's apartment- one of 4 officers said he saw the two men engaging in anal sex- and arrested them for what was a crime in Texas.

What about the 12 men arrested in Louisiana between 2011 and 2013? You think they wanted to be arrested to make the point?

At least a dozen men have been arrested by the East Baton Rouge sheriff's office in Louisiana since 2011 for agreeing to have consensual sex with an undercover male officer, according to a report by The Advocate newspaper.

These men weren't handing over money or having sex in a public place.
Instead, they were arrested under Louisiana's anti-sodomy law, despite the fact that such laws were deemed unconstitutional by the Supreme Court in 2003 in Lawrence v. Texas.

The most recent case discovered by The Advocate involved a 65-year-old man who was approached by an undercover cop earlier this month in a park. The police officer, who denied he was a cop, reportedly asked if the man wanted to go back to the man's apartment for "some drinks and some fun." After the man agreed and led the officer back to his apartment, he was arrested for an attempted "crime against nature."

Similar stings had been conducted by the sheriff's office even after the district attorney refused to prosecute them. Its rationale for the arrests?

"This is a law that is currently on the Louisiana books, and the sheriff is charged with enforcing the laws passed by our Louisiana Legislature," Casey Rayborn Hicks, a spokesman for the sheriff's office, told The Advocate. "Whether the law is valid is something for the courts to determine, but the sheriff will enforce the laws that are enacted."

I look forward to hearing exactly why you believe that all of these men wanted to be arrested to make a point.

 

[Syriusly]

She's not political and says what you want to hear, you can live with that. But if she said she's a conservative you'd be out to destroy the bitch...

Wow- so you think that Mildred Loving is a 'bitch'.

Is it because she is black?

Or because she supports marriage equality?

Or because she married a white man?

Yet another liberal without cognitive reasoning or reading comprehension. Get someone to explain to you what I said and get back to me.

You were the one who called Mildred Loving- whose only 'offense' was to dare to want to marry a black man 'a bitch'

Here were your exact words: if she[Mildred Loving] said she's a conservative you'd be out to destroy the bitch

do you think she a bitch because she is black?

Or because she supports marriage equality?

Or because she married a white man?

 

[Syriusly]

Negatory there big fella...

Sodomy laws in the United States - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

Actually, when it comes to civil rights in this country, it's how things have been done. What's new is shit like the House fucking suing the President instead of legislating.

Actually, when it comes to civil rights in this country, it's how things have been done. What's new is shit like the House fucking suing the President instead of legislating.

Or the President suing Arizona instead of administering the law.

Oh look at you ignoring your wrongness on sodomy laws.

Oh look, me not embarassing you.

Hardwick became hostile and threatened to have officers fired for entering his home.[citation needed] Both men were placed under arrest for sodomy, which was defined in Georgia law to include both oral sex and anal sex between members of the same or opposite sex.[5] The local district attorney elected not to present the charge to the grand jury, which would have been a prerequisite to any trial or punishment for the offense. Hardwick then sued Michael Bowers, the attorney general of Georgia, in federal court for a declaration that the state's sodomy law was invalid. He charged that as an active homosexual, he was liable to eventually be prosecuted for his activities.]

You understand they were not enforced, right? The only reason they became an issue is because the fags ginned up a case they could bring. OTherwise no one cared. Fags, causing trouble and disease wherever they go.

Um, you jumped from Texas to Georgia? Texas outlawed only gay anal and oral sex, not heterosexual and yes, someone was arrested for it, hence Lawrence v Texas.

I was not specific on Texas law. I made a generalization, and I was correct. Deal with it.
The case was a set up for the fags to get it overturned.

You lied.

 

[Seawytch]

Negatory there big fella...

Sodomy laws in the United States - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

So straight men could have sex? What grade is your reading level?

Literally on this one, Rabbi is correct. However, unlike man/woman marriage, sodomy laws are actually targeted at gays, it's not the same thing. But this isn't why, you have apparently no ability to give a logical reply to a point even when you are the right track.

No, Rabbi is trying to play games and I am appalled you'd be stupid enough to fall into it. Anal and oral sex between a man and a woman were not outlawed, sex between men was. Contrary to Rabid's claims, people were arrested for it.

Just like anti gay marriage laws, anti sodomy laws were based solely on animus against gay people so they lost just like bigoted anti gay marriage laws. When you have no rational basis to discriminate, you tend to lose.

You lose me whenever you talk about someone having animus towards you, I'd buy a mirror.

Sodomy laws are State law so they are different, I wasn't making an inclusive statement about what they say. But I agreed the sex sodomy laws are targeted at gays. But that wasn't good enough for you. Again, the mirror...

I don't want to discriminate against someone based solely on animus, you do. I saw that you agreed, that's nice. You want a cookie now? I said that anti gay marriage laws are based on the same animus that anti gay sodomy laws were. You disagree. Okay. Want another cookie? I don't need a cookie since judges are agreeing with my opinion on the subject, not yours.

Yes you do. You want to force churches to accept gays because you hate churches that don't. Oh sure you claim to want to force them through peer pressure rather than law, but in either case you hate them and want to force them to YOUR way of thinking rather than just accepting them for what they are.

You militant queers are no better than the militant anti gays.

Yes, "saint" Mike, I do....but that's not discrimination. In fact, wanting churches to bend to peer pressure and be more open and accepting of gays and lesbians is the opposite of discrimination.

 

[SmarterThanTheAverageBear]

So straight men could have sex? What grade is your reading level?

Literally on this one, Rabbi is correct. However, unlike man/woman marriage, sodomy laws are actually targeted at gays, it's not the same thing. But this isn't why, you have apparently no ability to give a logical reply to a point even when you are the right track.

No, Rabbi is trying to play games and I am appalled you'd be stupid enough to fall into it. Anal and oral sex between a man and a woman were not outlawed, sex between men was. Contrary to Rabid's claims, people were arrested for it.

Just like anti gay marriage laws, anti sodomy laws were based solely on animus against gay people so they lost just like bigoted anti gay marriage laws. When you have no rational basis to discriminate, you tend to lose.

You lose me whenever you talk about someone having animus towards you, I'd buy a mirror.

Sodomy laws are State law so they are different, I wasn't making an inclusive statement about what they say. But I agreed the sex sodomy laws are targeted at gays. But that wasn't good enough for you. Again, the mirror...

I don't want to discriminate against someone based solely on animus, you do. I saw that you agreed, that's nice. You want a cookie now? I said that anti gay marriage laws are based on the same animus that anti gay sodomy laws were. You disagree. Okay. Want another cookie? I don't need a cookie since judges are agreeing with my opinion on the subject, not yours.

Yes you do. You want to force churches to accept gays because you hate churches that don't. Oh sure you claim to want to force them through peer pressure rather than law, but in either case you hate them and want to force them to YOUR way of thinking rather than just accepting them for what they are.

You militant queers are no better than the militant anti gays.

Yes, "saint" Mike, I do....but that's not discrimination. In fact, wanting churches to bend to peer pressure and be more open and accepting of gays and lesbians is the opposite of discrimination.

BUllshit, it is DISCRIMINATING against their right not to accept you.

 

[Syriusly]

So straight men could have sex? What grade is your reading level?

Literally on this one, Rabbi is correct. However, unlike man/woman marriage, sodomy laws are actually targeted at gays, it's not the same thing. But this isn't why, you have apparently no ability to give a logical reply to a point even when you are the right track.

No, Rabbi is trying to play games and I am appalled you'd be stupid enough to fall into it. Anal and oral sex between a man and a woman were not outlawed, sex between men was. Contrary to Rabid's claims, people were arrested for it.

Just like anti gay marriage laws, anti sodomy laws were based solely on animus against gay people so they lost just like bigoted anti gay marriage laws. When you have no rational basis to discriminate, you tend to lose.

You lose me whenever you talk about someone having animus towards you, I'd buy a mirror.

Sodomy laws are State law so they are different, I wasn't making an inclusive statement about what they say. But I agreed the sex sodomy laws are targeted at gays. But that wasn't good enough for you. Again, the mirror...

I don't want to discriminate against someone based solely on animus, you do. I saw that you agreed, that's nice. You want a cookie now? I said that anti gay marriage laws are based on the same animus that anti gay sodomy laws were. You disagree. Okay. Want another cookie? I don't need a cookie since judges are agreeing with my opinion on the subject, not yours.

Yes you do. You want to force churches to accept gays because you hate churches that don't. Oh sure you claim to want to force them through peer pressure rather than law, but in either case you hate them and want to force them to YOUR way of thinking rather than just accepting them for what they are.

You militant queers are no better than the militant anti gays.

They're worse. Do you ever hear of any group wanting to boycott a baker because he made wedding cakes for gay couples?

No- but lots of groups have called for boycotts of business's because they were perceived as 'too gay friendly'

Southern Baptists- called for boycott of Disneyland because Disneyland didn't discriminate against homosexuals.
Million[lol] Moms- called for boycotts against among others:
Amazon- because Bezos made a donation pro- gay marriage
JC Penney- because Penny hired a known homosexual to be their spokesperson
Toys R Us- because they carried an Archie comic with a homosexual character
Liberty Counsel calling for a boycott of Target because Target supports same gender marriage.

I think boycotts are generally stupid.

But the gay community learned all about boycotts from the homophobic community.

 

[Syriusly]

You are incorrect. The Texas statute made male sodomy a crime. It didnt matter if you were gay or straight. Similarly with all the other examples.

I was not specific on Texas law. I made a generalization, and I was correct. Deal with it.
The case was a set up for the fags to get it overturned.

That's either an honest mistake or a known falsehood.


You were very specific that it was Texas.


>>>>

You've been pwned here already. Give it up.

If by "pwned" you really mean "Yes, I lied- and I was caught lying" well then that would be correct.

 

[Syriusly]

.

You are incorrect. The Texas statute made male sodomy a crime. It didnt matter if you were gay or straight. Similarly with all the other examples.

Well, how many straights were arrested and charged with that statute?

How many gays were? Virtually none.

And the ones who were wanted to be to make the point.

I don't agree with you gay sodomy laws are the same as man/woman marriage though. As I said before literally you are right. But man/woman marriage was the way it always was, gay marriage didn't occur to anyone who created government marriage. Gay sodomy laws were created with the intention of targeting gays. Be honest about that.

The statutory restrictions and state constitution amendments declaring that marriage was only one man and one woman that almost universally came after Hawaii extended civil union recognition to same sex couples were done to prevent gays from entering marriage. Be honest about that.

Now, delusion and sociopathy are what are known as MENTAL DISORDERS.
.

You demonstrate those disorders with every post.

 

[SmarterThanTheAverageBear]

No, Rabbi is trying to play games and I am appalled you'd be stupid enough to fall into it. Anal and oral sex between a man and a woman were not outlawed, sex between men was. Contrary to Rabid's claims, people were arrested for it.

Just like anti gay marriage laws, anti sodomy laws were based solely on animus against gay people so they lost just like bigoted anti gay marriage laws. When you have no rational basis to discriminate, you tend to lose.

You lose me whenever you talk about someone having animus towards you, I'd buy a mirror.

Sodomy laws are State law so they are different, I wasn't making an inclusive statement about what they say. But I agreed the sex sodomy laws are targeted at gays. But that wasn't good enough for you. Again, the mirror...

I don't want to discriminate against someone based solely on animus, you do. I saw that you agreed, that's nice. You want a cookie now? I said that anti gay marriage laws are based on the same animus that anti gay sodomy laws were. You disagree. Okay. Want another cookie? I don't need a cookie since judges are agreeing with my opinion on the subject, not yours.

Yes you do. You want to force churches to accept gays because you hate churches that don't. Oh sure you claim to want to force them through peer pressure rather than law, but in either case you hate them and want to force them to YOUR way of thinking rather than just accepting them for what they are.

You militant queers are no better than the militant anti gays.

They're worse. Do you ever hear of any group wanting to boycott a baker because he made wedding cakes for gay couples?

No- but lots of groups have called for boycotts of business's because they were perceived as 'too gay friendly'

Southern Baptists- called for boycott of Disneyland because Disneyland didn't discriminate against homosexuals.
Million[lol] Moms- called for boycotts against among others:
Amazon- because Bezos made a donation pro- gay marriage
JC Penney- because Penny hired a known homosexual to be their spokesperson
Toys R Us- because they carried an Archie comic with a homosexual character
Liberty Counsel calling for a boycott of Target because Target supports same gender marriage.

I think boycotts are generally stupid.

But the gay community learned all about boycotts from the homophobic community.

I think boycotts are perfectly fine and acceptable. Just don't claim you aren't discriminating when you do so. A boycott is the ultimate form of discrimination.

 

[Syriusly]

No, Rabbi is trying to play games and I am appalled you'd be stupid enough to fall into it. Anal and oral sex between a man and a woman were not outlawed, sex between men was. Contrary to Rabid's claims, people were arrested for it.

Just like anti gay marriage laws, anti sodomy laws were based solely on animus against gay people so they lost just like bigoted anti gay marriage laws. When you have no rational basis to discriminate, you tend to lose.

You lose me whenever you talk about someone having animus towards you, I'd buy a mirror.

Sodomy laws are State law so they are different, I wasn't making an inclusive statement about what they say. But I agreed the sex sodomy laws are targeted at gays. But that wasn't good enough for you. Again, the mirror...

I don't want to discriminate against someone based solely on animus, you do. I saw that you agreed, that's nice. You want a cookie now? I said that anti gay marriage laws are based on the same animus that anti gay sodomy laws were. You disagree. Okay. Want another cookie? I don't need a cookie since judges are agreeing with my opinion on the subject, not yours.

Yes you do. You want to force churches to accept gays because you hate churches that don't. Oh sure you claim to want to force them through peer pressure rather than law, but in either case you hate them and want to force them to YOUR way of thinking rather than just accepting them for what they are.

You militant queers are no better than the militant anti gays.

Yes, "saint" Mike, I do....but that's not discrimination. In fact, wanting churches to bend to peer pressure and be more open and accepting of gays and lesbians is the opposite of discrimination.

BUllshit, it is DISCRIMINATING against their right not to accept you.

Really?

So you think that the thousands of Catholic women who have been advocating for years to be accepted as Priests in the Church are 'discriminating against men's right not to accept them'?

The African Americans who asked that they be considered full and equal members of the Church of Latter Day Saints with white people were discriminating against White people right not to accept them?

Or is this just specific to homosexuals and the church?

 

[Syriusly]

You lose me whenever you talk about someone having animus towards you, I'd buy a mirror.

Sodomy laws are State law so they are different, I wasn't making an inclusive statement about what they say. But I agreed the sex sodomy laws are targeted at gays. But that wasn't good enough for you. Again, the mirror...

I don't want to discriminate against someone based solely on animus, you do. I saw that you agreed, that's nice. You want a cookie now? I said that anti gay marriage laws are based on the same animus that anti gay sodomy laws were. You disagree. Okay. Want another cookie? I don't need a cookie since judges are agreeing with my opinion on the subject, not yours.

Yes you do. You want to force churches to accept gays because you hate churches that don't. Oh sure you claim to want to force them through peer pressure rather than law, but in either case you hate them and want to force them to YOUR way of thinking rather than just accepting them for what they are.

You militant queers are no better than the militant anti gays.

They're worse. Do you ever hear of any group wanting to boycott a baker because he made wedding cakes for gay couples?

No- but lots of groups have called for boycotts of business's because they were perceived as 'too gay friendly'

Southern Baptists- called for boycott of Disneyland because Disneyland didn't discriminate against homosexuals.
Million[lol] Moms- called for boycotts against among others:
Amazon- because Bezos made a donation pro- gay marriage
JC Penney- because Penny hired a known homosexual to be their spokesperson
Toys R Us- because they carried an Archie comic with a homosexual character
Liberty Counsel calling for a boycott of Target because Target supports same gender marriage.

I think boycotts are generally stupid.

But the gay community learned all about boycotts from the homophobic community.

I think boycotts are perfectly fine and acceptable. Just don't claim you aren't discriminating when you do so. A boycott is the ultimate form of discrimination.

Well you and I apparently have different standards when it comes to defining 'discrimination'.

I define discrimination as judging or acting against someone based simply upon who they are- what their identity is- i.e. refusing to rent a room to someone because they are black or calling for a boycott against a business simply because the owner is Christian.

I do not think for calling for a boycott of a business that refuses to sell to African Americans is discrimination. Nor do I think it is discrimination to call for a boycott of a businessman who claims that Jews are evil and that the holocaust never happened.

Responding to someone's actions to me is not 'discrimination'- acting against someone because of who you identify them as- is discrimination.

 

[SmarterThanTheAverageBear]

You lose me whenever you talk about someone having animus towards you, I'd buy a mirror.

Sodomy laws are State law so they are different, I wasn't making an inclusive statement about what they say. But I agreed the sex sodomy laws are targeted at gays. But that wasn't good enough for you. Again, the mirror...

I don't want to discriminate against someone based solely on animus, you do. I saw that you agreed, that's nice. You want a cookie now? I said that anti gay marriage laws are based on the same animus that anti gay sodomy laws were. You disagree. Okay. Want another cookie? I don't need a cookie since judges are agreeing with my opinion on the subject, not yours.

Yes you do. You want to force churches to accept gays because you hate churches that don't. Oh sure you claim to want to force them through peer pressure rather than law, but in either case you hate them and want to force them to YOUR way of thinking rather than just accepting them for what they are.

You militant queers are no better than the militant anti gays.

Yes, "saint" Mike, I do....but that's not discrimination. In fact, wanting churches to bend to peer pressure and be more open and accepting of gays and lesbians is the opposite of discrimination.

BUllshit, it is DISCRIMINATING against their right not to accept you.

Really?

So you think that the thousands of Catholic women who have been advocating for years to be accepted as Priests in the Church are 'discriminating against men's right not to accept them'?

The African Americans who asked that they be considered full and equal members of the Church of Latter Day Saints with white people were discriminating against White people right not to accept them?

Or is this just specific to homosexuals and the church?

Not what I said at all.

What I DID say was that screaming that a group doesn't have a right to discriminate and trying to force them to change is discriminating against that group. Doesn't matter what group that is.

 

[SmarterThanTheAverageBear]

I don't want to discriminate against someone based solely on animus, you do. I saw that you agreed, that's nice. You want a cookie now? I said that anti gay marriage laws are based on the same animus that anti gay sodomy laws were. You disagree. Okay. Want another cookie? I don't need a cookie since judges are agreeing with my opinion on the subject, not yours.

Yes you do. You want to force churches to accept gays because you hate churches that don't. Oh sure you claim to want to force them through peer pressure rather than law, but in either case you hate them and want to force them to YOUR way of thinking rather than just accepting them for what they are.

You militant queers are no better than the militant anti gays.

They're worse. Do you ever hear of any group wanting to boycott a baker because he made wedding cakes for gay couples?

No- but lots of groups have called for boycotts of business's because they were perceived as 'too gay friendly'

Southern Baptists- called for boycott of Disneyland because Disneyland didn't discriminate against homosexuals.
Million[lol] Moms- called for boycotts against among others:
Amazon- because Bezos made a donation pro- gay marriage
JC Penney- because Penny hired a known homosexual to be their spokesperson
Toys R Us- because they carried an Archie comic with a homosexual character
Liberty Counsel calling for a boycott of Target because Target supports same gender marriage.

I think boycotts are generally stupid.

But the gay community learned all about boycotts from the homophobic community.

I think boycotts are perfectly fine and acceptable. Just don't claim you aren't discriminating when you do so. A boycott is the ultimate form of discrimination.

Well you and I apparently have different standards when it comes to defining 'discrimination'.

I define discrimination as judging or acting against someone based simply upon who they are- what their identity is- i.e. refusing to rent a room to someone because they are black or calling for a boycott against a business simply because the owner is Christian.

I do not think for calling for a boycott of a business that refuses to sell to African Americans is discrimination. Nor do I think it is discrimination to call for a boycott of a businessman who claims that Jews are evil and that the holocaust never happened.

Responding to someone's actions to me is not 'discrimination'- acting against someone because of who you identify them as- is discrimination.

Agree to disagree

 

[Syriusly]

I don't want to discriminate against someone based solely on animus, you do. I saw that you agreed, that's nice. You want a cookie now? I said that anti gay marriage laws are based on the same animus that anti gay sodomy laws were. You disagree. Okay. Want another cookie? I don't need a cookie since judges are agreeing with my opinion on the subject, not yours.

Yes you do. You want to force churches to accept gays because you hate churches that don't. Oh sure you claim to want to force them through peer pressure rather than law, but in either case you hate them and want to force them to YOUR way of thinking rather than just accepting them for what they are.

You militant queers are no better than the militant anti gays.

Yes, "saint" Mike, I do....but that's not discrimination. In fact, wanting churches to bend to peer pressure and be more open and accepting of gays and lesbians is the opposite of discrimination.

BUllshit, it is DISCRIMINATING against their right not to accept you.

Really?

So you think that the thousands of Catholic women who have been advocating for years to be accepted as Priests in the Church are 'discriminating against men's right not to accept them'?

The African Americans who asked that they be considered full and equal members of the Church of Latter Day Saints with white people were discriminating against White people right not to accept them?

Or is this just specific to homosexuals and the church?

Not what I said at all.

What I DID say was that screaming that a group doesn't have a right to discriminate and trying to force them to change is discriminating against that group. Doesn't matter what group that is.

Okay then- again then

Do you think that the thousands of Catholic women who have been advocating for years to be accepted as Priests in the Church are 'discriminating against men's right not to accept them'?

Do you think that the African Americans who asked that they be considered full and equal members of the Church of Latter Day Saints with white people were discriminating against White people right not to accept them?

In both cases, you had a specific group saying that the church shouldn't discriminate and try to 'force' the church to change through public opinion.

 

[Silhouette]

Be aware that Syriusly is trying to equate gay sex with either a race or a religion...

...OK, now , proceed...

 

[SmarterThanTheAverageBear]

Yes you do. You want to force churches to accept gays because you hate churches that don't. Oh sure you claim to want to force them through peer pressure rather than law, but in either case you hate them and want to force them to YOUR way of thinking rather than just accepting them for what they are.

You militant queers are no better than the militant anti gays.

Yes, "saint" Mike, I do....but that's not discrimination. In fact, wanting churches to bend to peer pressure and be more open and accepting of gays and lesbians is the opposite of discrimination.

BUllshit, it is DISCRIMINATING against their right not to accept you.

Really?

So you think that the thousands of Catholic women who have been advocating for years to be accepted as Priests in the Church are 'discriminating against men's right not to accept them'?

The African Americans who asked that they be considered full and equal members of the Church of Latter Day Saints with white people were discriminating against White people right not to accept them?

Or is this just specific to homosexuals and the church?

Not what I said at all.

What I DID say was that screaming that a group doesn't have a right to discriminate and trying to force them to change is discriminating against that group. Doesn't matter what group that is.

Okay then- again then

Do you think that the thousands of Catholic women who have been advocating for years to be accepted as Priests in the Church are 'discriminating against men's right not to accept them'?

Do you think that the African Americans who asked that they be considered full and equal members of the Church of Latter Day Saints with white people were discriminating against White people right not to accept them?

In both cases, you had a specific group saying that the church shouldn't discriminate and try to 'force' the church to change through public opinion.

That is 100% correct. Look up the definition of discrimination.

If you have two churches , one accepts female ministers and one doesn't , and you treat one differently than the other, you have discriminated.

The difference between you and I is, I believe that it is a crock of shit for the government at any level to tell us we can not discriminate.