Meet the grandmother florist...being crushed by hate filled gays...

[Derideo_Te]

I was referring to the sexuality and not the legal interpretation of either. Pedophilia and homosexuality are comparable in that both are anomalous sex drives that run counter to procreation.

And also homophobes really, really like to bring up homosexuality and pedophilia in the same sentence in order to equate homosexuals and pedophiles.

You want homosexuals discriminated against because they 'can't procreate' - even though of course- homosexuals do procreate- and even though heterosexuals often do not procreate. Which of course is just a rationalization for you wanting homosexuals discriminated against.

FYI pedophiles are mostly heterosexuals.

10 Anti-Gay Myths Debunked Southern Poverty Law Center

The fixated child molester — the stereotypical pedophile — cannot be considered homosexual or heterosexual because "he often finds adults of either sex repulsive" and often molests children of both sexes. Regressive child molesters are generally attracted to other adults, but may "regress" to focusing on children when confronted with stressful situations. Groth found, as Herek notes, that the majority of regressed offenders were heterosexual in their adult relationships.

The Child Molestation Research & Prevention Institute notes that 90% of child molesters target children in their network of family and friends, and the majority are men married to women.​

well...nice try.....could you show the percentage of the heterosexual population that are pedophiles and then the percent of homosexuals who are pedophiles....that is usually how you guys lie about these issues......

You just proved that you were lying about being more knowledgeable about science. The link provided was well researched and documented proving that pedophiles are 10 times more likely to be heterosexuals.

Child Molestation Research Prevention Institute

View attachment 39604

View attachment 39605

View attachment 39606

When you consider that the general population has heteros at fifty times that of homos the pedophilia/homo numbers are then disproportionate. But that's a completely different argument than what this thread is about. The legit comparison between homo and pedophile as per the thread is that both are counter to sexuality's purpose, that being procreation. So their comparison is legit.

Your lack of any shred of honesty and integrity is patently obvious to everyone who reads your homophobic posts.

 

[2aguy]

actually he is wrong on an important point...homosexual sex is not illegal if the people engaging in it are of age and are both consenting......pedophilia is an illegal act because it involves,minors who cannot give consent in the relationship...

I was referring to the sexuality and not the legal interpretation of either. Pedophilia and homosexuality are comparable in that both are anomalous sex drives that run counter to procreation.

And also homophobes really, really like to bring up homosexuality and pedophilia in the same sentence in order to equate homosexuals and pedophiles.

You want homosexuals discriminated against because they 'can't procreate' - even though of course- homosexuals do procreate- and even though heterosexuals often do not procreate. Which of course is just a rationalization for you wanting homosexuals discriminated against.

FYI pedophiles are mostly heterosexuals.

10 Anti-Gay Myths Debunked Southern Poverty Law Center

The fixated child molester — the stereotypical pedophile — cannot be considered homosexual or heterosexual because "he often finds adults of either sex repulsive" and often molests children of both sexes. Regressive child molesters are generally attracted to other adults, but may "regress" to focusing on children when confronted with stressful situations. Groth found, as Herek notes, that the majority of regressed offenders were heterosexual in their adult relationships.

The Child Molestation Research & Prevention Institute notes that 90% of child molesters target children in their network of family and friends, and the majority are men married to women.​

well...nice try.....could you show the percentage of the heterosexual population that are pedophiles and then the percent of homosexuals who are pedophiles....that is usually how you guys lie about these issues......

You just proved that you were lying about being more knowledgeable about science. The link provided was well researched and documented proving that pedophiles are 10 times more likely to be heterosexuals.

Child Molestation Research Prevention Institute

View attachment 39604

View attachment 39605

View attachment 39606

Yeah....interesting that you still didn't give the chart that showed actual percentages of straight molesters vs. gay molesters in their own groups.........nice try though......

 

[Derideo_Te]

She needs to take this to court and it needs to be struck down as Unconstitutional.....

Only in your wet dreams.

 

[bodecea]

2aguy

Above is a social conservative for you. You should ask him what he thinks about black people next.

actually he is wrong on an important point...homosexual sex is not illegal if the people engaging in it are of age and are both consenting......pedophilia is an illegal act because it involves,minors who cannot give consent in the relationship...

I was referring to the sexuality and not the legal interpretation of either. Pedophilia and homosexuality are comparable in that both are anomalous sex drives that run counter to procreation.

And also homophobes really, really like to bring up homosexuality and pedophilia in the same sentence in order to equate homosexuals and pedophiles.

You want homosexuals discriminated against because they 'can't procreate' - even though of course- homosexuals do procreate- and even though heterosexuals often do not procreate. Which of course is just a rationalization for you wanting homosexuals discriminated against.

FYI pedophiles are mostly heterosexuals.

10 Anti-Gay Myths Debunked Southern Poverty Law Center

The fixated child molester — the stereotypical pedophile — cannot be considered homosexual or heterosexual because "he often finds adults of either sex repulsive" and often molests children of both sexes. Regressive child molesters are generally attracted to other adults, but may "regress" to focusing on children when confronted with stressful situations. Groth found, as Herek notes, that the majority of regressed offenders were heterosexual in their adult relationships.

The Child Molestation Research & Prevention Institute notes that 90% of child molesters target children in their network of family and friends, and the majority are men married to women.​

well...nice try.....could you show the percentage of the heterosexual population that are pedophiles and then the percent of homosexuals who are pedophiles....that is usually how you guys lie about these issues......

How about showing the percentage of the MALE population that are pedophiles and then the percent of the FEMALES that are pedophiles?

 

[Derideo_Te]

I was referring to the sexuality and not the legal interpretation of either. Pedophilia and homosexuality are comparable in that both are anomalous sex drives that run counter to procreation.

And also homophobes really, really like to bring up homosexuality and pedophilia in the same sentence in order to equate homosexuals and pedophiles.

You want homosexuals discriminated against because they 'can't procreate' - even though of course- homosexuals do procreate- and even though heterosexuals often do not procreate. Which of course is just a rationalization for you wanting homosexuals discriminated against.

FYI pedophiles are mostly heterosexuals.

10 Anti-Gay Myths Debunked Southern Poverty Law Center

The fixated child molester — the stereotypical pedophile — cannot be considered homosexual or heterosexual because "he often finds adults of either sex repulsive" and often molests children of both sexes. Regressive child molesters are generally attracted to other adults, but may "regress" to focusing on children when confronted with stressful situations. Groth found, as Herek notes, that the majority of regressed offenders were heterosexual in their adult relationships.

The Child Molestation Research & Prevention Institute notes that 90% of child molesters target children in their network of family and friends, and the majority are men married to women.​

well...nice try.....could you show the percentage of the heterosexual population that are pedophiles and then the percent of homosexuals who are pedophiles....that is usually how you guys lie about these issues......

You just proved that you were lying about being more knowledgeable about science. The link provided was well researched and documented proving that pedophiles are 10 times more likely to be heterosexuals.

Child Molestation Research Prevention Institute

View attachment 39604

View attachment 39605

View attachment 39606

Yeah....interesting that you still didn't give the chart that showed actual percentages of straight molesters vs. gay molesters in their own groups.........nice try though......

Your inability to comprehend the scientific classifications of pedophiles is your problem.

Suffice to say that they are 90% heterosexual where their orientation can be accurately identified.

 

[2aguy]

Time to watch Daredevil......have a nice weekend....well...at least some of you.....

 

[2aguy]

It is not the same thing, they did not /agree/ to said law. But besides that, just as they had the right to /challenge/ the law that they be allowed to sit at the counter and not at the back of the bus, the florist also has the right to /challenge/ the law that she be forced to serve gay weddings.

However, as the law on the books right now says that she is legally obligated to serve gay weddings, thus she cannot refuse service based exclusively on their sexual orientation until said law is changed. She was justly fined for failure to follow the law.


Look, you don't want to get it, even though we're pretty much on the same side, so you're just trolling. I have other things to do.

I'm not fucking trolling, I agree, she has to go to court......my point in this post is that pushing this to this extreme over a floral arrangement for a gay wedding when this woman has been nothing but kind, helpful and willing to provide flowers in the past over a number of years....

Is a really asshole move on their part and on the part of the government agencies involved......

She needs to take this to court and it needs to be struck down as Unconstitutional.....

This just goes to prove you can't trust homos. Never, ever trust a homo.

Actually....never trust a lefty....whichever sexual orientation they are, or race, color or creed...their leftism trumps everything....

 

[bodecea]

It is not the same thing, they did not /agree/ to said law. But besides that, just as they had the right to /challenge/ the law that they be allowed to sit at the counter and not at the back of the bus, the florist also has the right to /challenge/ the law that she be forced to serve gay weddings.

However, as the law on the books right now says that she is legally obligated to serve gay weddings, thus she cannot refuse service based exclusively on their sexual orientation until said law is changed. She was justly fined for failure to follow the law.


Look, you don't want to get it, even though we're pretty much on the same side, so you're just trolling. I have other things to do.

I'm not fucking trolling, I agree, she has to go to court......my point in this post is that pushing this to this extreme over a floral arrangement for a gay wedding when this woman has been nothing but kind, helpful and willing to provide flowers in the past over a number of years....

Is a really asshole move on their part and on the part of the government agencies involved......

She needs to take this to court and it needs to be struck down as Unconstitutional.....

Well, PA laws have already been challenged....and declared Constitutional. Will you agree with the courts if they do it again?

 

[2aguy]

It is not the same thing, they did not /agree/ to said law. But besides that, just as they had the right to /challenge/ the law that they be allowed to sit at the counter and not at the back of the bus, the florist also has the right to /challenge/ the law that she be forced to serve gay weddings.

However, as the law on the books right now says that she is legally obligated to serve gay weddings, thus she cannot refuse service based exclusively on their sexual orientation until said law is changed. She was justly fined for failure to follow the law.


Look, you don't want to get it, even though we're pretty much on the same side, so you're just trolling. I have other things to do.

I'm not fucking trolling, I agree, she has to go to court......my point in this post is that pushing this to this extreme over a floral arrangement for a gay wedding when this woman has been nothing but kind, helpful and willing to provide flowers in the past over a number of years....

Is a really asshole move on their part and on the part of the government agencies involved......

She needs to take this to court and it needs to be struck down as Unconstitutional.....

Well, PA laws have already been challenged....and declared Constitutional. Will you agree with the courts if they do it again?

No....the judges are wrong....and probably lefties.....that is why we need a congressional over ride on the Constitutionality of laws.....a few people in robes, with life time jobs, should not be telling us what is or isn't constittuional......remember...judges also said you had to hand slaves back to their democrat owners, and that separate but equal was constitutional too.......until other judges said it wasn't.......right?

 

[2aguy]

It is not the same thing, they did not /agree/ to said law. But besides that, just as they had the right to /challenge/ the law that they be allowed to sit at the counter and not at the back of the bus, the florist also has the right to /challenge/ the law that she be forced to serve gay weddings.

However, as the law on the books right now says that she is legally obligated to serve gay weddings, thus she cannot refuse service based exclusively on their sexual orientation until said law is changed. She was justly fined for failure to follow the law.


Look, you don't want to get it, even though we're pretty much on the same side, so you're just trolling. I have other things to do.

I'm not fucking trolling, I agree, she has to go to court......my point in this post is that pushing this to this extreme over a floral arrangement for a gay wedding when this woman has been nothing but kind, helpful and willing to provide flowers in the past over a number of years....

Is a really asshole move on their part and on the part of the government agencies involved......

She needs to take this to court and it needs to be struck down as Unconstitutional.....

Well, PA laws have already been challenged....and declared Constitutional. Will you agree with the courts if they do it again?

Here you go.....I love the internet....here are laws at one point deemed Constitutional and the law of the land....until new judges came along and said they weren't......

List of overruled U.S. Supreme Court decisions - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

 

[2aguy]

Do you guys think Plessy Vs. Ferguson was really Constitutional...even though the Supreme Court said it was....or Koramtsu?.....didn't think so......

 

[Derideo_Te]

It is not the same thing, they did not /agree/ to said law. But besides that, just as they had the right to /challenge/ the law that they be allowed to sit at the counter and not at the back of the bus, the florist also has the right to /challenge/ the law that she be forced to serve gay weddings.

However, as the law on the books right now says that she is legally obligated to serve gay weddings, thus she cannot refuse service based exclusively on their sexual orientation until said law is changed. She was justly fined for failure to follow the law.


Look, you don't want to get it, even though we're pretty much on the same side, so you're just trolling. I have other things to do.

I'm not fucking trolling, I agree, she has to go to court......my point in this post is that pushing this to this extreme over a floral arrangement for a gay wedding when this woman has been nothing but kind, helpful and willing to provide flowers in the past over a number of years....

Is a really asshole move on their part and on the part of the government agencies involved......

She needs to take this to court and it needs to be struck down as Unconstitutional.....

Well, PA laws have already been challenged....and declared Constitutional. Will you agree with the courts if they do it again?

No....the judges are wrong....and probably lefties.....that is why we need a congressional over ride on the Constitutionality of laws.....a few people in robes, with life time jobs, should not be telling us what is or isn't constittuional......remember...judges also said you had to hand slaves back to their democrat owners, and that separate but equal was constitutional too.......until other judges said it wasn't.......right?

Another home schooled dropout!

/sigh

The separation of powers in the Constitution grants the SCOTUS the right to determine what is and isn't constitutional. Congress then gets to rewrite their laws if they deem it necessary. Social Studies 101.

 

[bodecea]

It is not the same thing, they did not /agree/ to said law. But besides that, just as they had the right to /challenge/ the law that they be allowed to sit at the counter and not at the back of the bus, the florist also has the right to /challenge/ the law that she be forced to serve gay weddings.

However, as the law on the books right now says that she is legally obligated to serve gay weddings, thus she cannot refuse service based exclusively on their sexual orientation until said law is changed. She was justly fined for failure to follow the law.


Look, you don't want to get it, even though we're pretty much on the same side, so you're just trolling. I have other things to do.

I'm not fucking trolling, I agree, she has to go to court......my point in this post is that pushing this to this extreme over a floral arrangement for a gay wedding when this woman has been nothing but kind, helpful and willing to provide flowers in the past over a number of years....

Is a really asshole move on their part and on the part of the government agencies involved......

She needs to take this to court and it needs to be struck down as Unconstitutional.....

Well, PA laws have already been challenged....and declared Constitutional. Will you agree with the courts if they do it again?

No....the judges are wrong....and probably lefties.....that is why we need a congressional over ride on the Constitutionality of laws.....a few people in robes, with life time jobs, should not be telling us what is or isn't constittuional......remember...judges also said you had to hand slaves back to their democrat owners, and that separate but equal was constitutional too.......until other judges said it wasn't.......right?

So...let me get this straight....you want her to go to court...but if the court doesn't call it your way, the court is wrong.

 

[2aguy]

It is not the same thing, they did not /agree/ to said law. But besides that, just as they had the right to /challenge/ the law that they be allowed to sit at the counter and not at the back of the bus, the florist also has the right to /challenge/ the law that she be forced to serve gay weddings.

However, as the law on the books right now says that she is legally obligated to serve gay weddings, thus she cannot refuse service based exclusively on their sexual orientation until said law is changed. She was justly fined for failure to follow the law.


Look, you don't want to get it, even though we're pretty much on the same side, so you're just trolling. I have other things to do.

I'm not fucking trolling, I agree, she has to go to court......my point in this post is that pushing this to this extreme over a floral arrangement for a gay wedding when this woman has been nothing but kind, helpful and willing to provide flowers in the past over a number of years....

Is a really asshole move on their part and on the part of the government agencies involved......

She needs to take this to court and it needs to be struck down as Unconstitutional.....

Well, PA laws have already been challenged....and declared Constitutional. Will you agree with the courts if they do it again?

No....the judges are wrong....and probably lefties.....that is why we need a congressional over ride on the Constitutionality of laws.....a few people in robes, with life time jobs, should not be telling us what is or isn't constittuional......remember...judges also said you had to hand slaves back to their democrat owners, and that separate but equal was constitutional too.......until other judges said it wasn't.......right?

Another home schooled dropout!

/sigh

The separation of powers in the Constitution grants the SCOTUS the right to determine what is and isn't constitutional. Congress then gets to rewrite their laws if they deem it necessary. Social Studies 101.

Yeah....I know that....that is why I am saying we need to change that.....dipstick........writing laws isn't enough......too much power has been taken by the courts in this matter.......since Marbury vs. Madison.......

 

[bodecea]

Do you guys think Plessy Vs. Ferguson was really Constitutional...even though the Supreme Court said it was....or Koramtsu?.....didn't think so......

It was....until Brown v. Board of Ed. Did you ever read that court case....they worked very hard to PROVE that separate did NOT mean equal.

 

[bodecea]

It is not the same thing, they did not /agree/ to said law. But besides that, just as they had the right to /challenge/ the law that they be allowed to sit at the counter and not at the back of the bus, the florist also has the right to /challenge/ the law that she be forced to serve gay weddings.

However, as the law on the books right now says that she is legally obligated to serve gay weddings, thus she cannot refuse service based exclusively on their sexual orientation until said law is changed. She was justly fined for failure to follow the law.


Look, you don't want to get it, even though we're pretty much on the same side, so you're just trolling. I have other things to do.

I'm not fucking trolling, I agree, she has to go to court......my point in this post is that pushing this to this extreme over a floral arrangement for a gay wedding when this woman has been nothing but kind, helpful and willing to provide flowers in the past over a number of years....

Is a really asshole move on their part and on the part of the government agencies involved......

She needs to take this to court and it needs to be struck down as Unconstitutional.....

Well, PA laws have already been challenged....and declared Constitutional. Will you agree with the courts if they do it again?

No....the judges are wrong....and probably lefties.....that is why we need a congressional over ride on the Constitutionality of laws.....a few people in robes, with life time jobs, should not be telling us what is or isn't constittuional......remember...judges also said you had to hand slaves back to their democrat owners, and that separate but equal was constitutional too.......until other judges said it wasn't.......right?

Another home schooled dropout!

/sigh

The separation of powers in the Constitution grants the SCOTUS the right to determine what is and isn't constitutional. Congress then gets to rewrite their laws if they deem it necessary. Social Studies 101.

Yeah....I know that....that is why I am saying we need to change that.....dipstick........writing laws isn't enough......too much power has been taken by the courts in this matter.......since Marbury vs. Madison.......

It is the responsibility of the courts to interpret laws....the judges/justices involved are well acquainted with Constitutional Law.....ALL of it. Your credentials are.............?

 

[2aguy]

It is not the same thing, they did not /agree/ to said law. But besides that, just as they had the right to /challenge/ the law that they be allowed to sit at the counter and not at the back of the bus, the florist also has the right to /challenge/ the law that she be forced to serve gay weddings.

However, as the law on the books right now says that she is legally obligated to serve gay weddings, thus she cannot refuse service based exclusively on their sexual orientation until said law is changed. She was justly fined for failure to follow the law.


Look, you don't want to get it, even though we're pretty much on the same side, so you're just trolling. I have other things to do.

I'm not fucking trolling, I agree, she has to go to court......my point in this post is that pushing this to this extreme over a floral arrangement for a gay wedding when this woman has been nothing but kind, helpful and willing to provide flowers in the past over a number of years....

Is a really asshole move on their part and on the part of the government agencies involved......

She needs to take this to court and it needs to be struck down as Unconstitutional.....

Well, PA laws have already been challenged....and declared Constitutional. Will you agree with the courts if they do it again?

No....the judges are wrong....and probably lefties.....that is why we need a congressional over ride on the Constitutionality of laws.....a few people in robes, with life time jobs, should not be telling us what is or isn't constittuional......remember...judges also said you had to hand slaves back to their democrat owners, and that separate but equal was constitutional too.......until other judges said it wasn't.......right?

So...let me get this straight....you want her to go to court...but if the court doesn't call it your way, the court is wrong.

Yes.....we have a legal process...so she has to go to court.....and the right decision is to protect her Constitutionally guaranteed right ( I know, the constitution doesn't give rights but you know what I mean...at least the conservatives do) to freely practice her religion.....and if they decide against her...they are wrong......just as they were wrong when they decided Plessy vs. Ferguson and Koramatsu vs. U.S..........

 

[2aguy]

Do you guys think Plessy Vs. Ferguson was really Constitutional...even though the Supreme Court said it was....or Koramtsu?.....didn't think so......

It was....until Brown v. Board of Ed. Did you ever read that court case....they worked very hard to PROVE that separate did NOT mean equal.

Exactly....those jokers decided separation was Constitutional when it obviously wasn't.....just because they are judges doens't make them smart or wise...........they are political appointments..........

 

[2aguy]

I'm not fucking trolling, I agree, she has to go to court......my point in this post is that pushing this to this extreme over a floral arrangement for a gay wedding when this woman has been nothing but kind, helpful and willing to provide flowers in the past over a number of years....

Is a really asshole move on their part and on the part of the government agencies involved......

She needs to take this to court and it needs to be struck down as Unconstitutional.....

Well, PA laws have already been challenged....and declared Constitutional. Will you agree with the courts if they do it again?

No....the judges are wrong....and probably lefties.....that is why we need a congressional over ride on the Constitutionality of laws.....a few people in robes, with life time jobs, should not be telling us what is or isn't constittuional......remember...judges also said you had to hand slaves back to their democrat owners, and that separate but equal was constitutional too.......until other judges said it wasn't.......right?

Another home schooled dropout!

/sigh

The separation of powers in the Constitution grants the SCOTUS the right to determine what is and isn't constitutional. Congress then gets to rewrite their laws if they deem it necessary. Social Studies 101.

Yeah....I know that....that is why I am saying we need to change that.....dipstick........writing laws isn't enough......too much power has been taken by the courts in this matter.......since Marbury vs. Madison.......

It is the responsibility of the courts to interpret laws....the judges/justices involved are well acquainted with Constitutional Law.....ALL of it. Your credentials are.............?

A citizen of the United States who has read the Constitution.....you? And the guys who decided Plessy Vs. Ferguson had law degrees and years of experience....but you and I know they were wrong...right?

Dittos Koramatsu....right? Lots of degrees, lots of years on the bench...and still wrong...right? A robe doesn't give you extra wisdom.......

 

[bodecea]

Well, PA laws have already been challenged....and declared Constitutional. Will you agree with the courts if they do it again?

No....the judges are wrong....and probably lefties.....that is why we need a congressional over ride on the Constitutionality of laws.....a few people in robes, with life time jobs, should not be telling us what is or isn't constittuional......remember...judges also said you had to hand slaves back to their democrat owners, and that separate but equal was constitutional too.......until other judges said it wasn't.......right?

Another home schooled dropout!

/sigh

The separation of powers in the Constitution grants the SCOTUS the right to determine what is and isn't constitutional. Congress then gets to rewrite their laws if they deem it necessary. Social Studies 101.

Yeah....I know that....that is why I am saying we need to change that.....dipstick........writing laws isn't enough......too much power has been taken by the courts in this matter.......since Marbury vs. Madison.......

It is the responsibility of the courts to interpret laws....the judges/justices involved are well acquainted with Constitutional Law.....ALL of it. Your credentials are.............?

A citizen of the United States who has read the Constitution.....you? And the guys who decided Plessy Vs. Ferguson had law degrees and years of experience....but you and I know they were wrong...right?

Dittos Koramatsu....right? Lots of degrees, lots of years on the bench...and still wrong...right? A robe doesn't give you extra wisdom.......

I will take the work on the Constitutionality of a law from several Constitutional justices over yours (and over mine) any day. That's what they are there for. You're just a guy unhappy with their rulings. (I don't like some of their rulings either, but I read up on their decisions which tie to the Constitutionality of why they decided what they did).