Indeependent
Diamond Member
- Nov 19, 2013
- 73,633
- 28,502
- 2,250
I ran from nothing.First of all smiley, let me remind you that this exchange began when you stupidly claimed that the US Constitution already contains all of the protections against discrimination that are needed, suggesting that no legislatoion is needed. I challanged you on that and you ran from it, not even attempting to defend you inane claimPosts 93 and 109.Please point us to the Article of-or amendment to- the Constitution, or Constitutional Case Law that specifically protects LGBT people from discrimination in housing, employment, public accomodations and financial transactions .Which has what to do with the fact that the USC already has provisions to allow people to live in peace?Gay people did not choose to be gay either moron. But you apparently chose to be an ignorant bigot. Well, maybe that is unfair. You can't help it just like blacks and gays.They said the same stupid shit about civil rights for blacks. Same bullshit, different target. People who hate have to hate. It's just a mattter of what you can get away with, or think tyat you can get away with any a given point in time.equal to is not the same as supreme.
besides she's a nutter.
So you don't know what the actual outcomes would be. You're not cognizant of the outrageous violations of First-Amendment liberties and property rights this legislation portends, or cognizant of the judicial shitstorm that would arise if it were passed by the Senate and signed into law?
That's what I thought.
You hear the word equal and get a weepy, snot-stained hankey feeling. Hot damn, leftist politicians love useful idiots like you!
But, then, you in all likelihood are a rank narcissist or sociopath, so you wouldn't give a damn about the violation of others' natural rights anyway.
After all, you're a leftist, aren't you? You're a statist bootlick of collectivist, mobocratic rule, right?
The difference is that black people don't choose to be black.
OTOH, people do choose what kind of sexual perversion they want to engage in.
Believe me, if you go to the Ghetto in your city and walk up to a group of young black guys on the corner and tell them" I don't see any difference between you guys and the Homos", it will not go over that well and you will be asking for and receiving an ugly scene.
You stepped in your own doo doo.
Post 109 ? Your post fool!
You said: In direct response to you post, why would anyone attack or offend someone for the sexuality if they are not displaying their sexuality.
I said in post 93: Do straight, cisgender people display their sexuality in public? What the fuck is the difference ??!
You said in 109 : If so, why would we need anyone's sexuality mentioned specifically in a law? .
How the fuck does any of that mean that LGBT people are protected by the constitution. You are either insane, stupid or just playing a sick game. A combination of all three I suspect
You said that LGBT people don't dress out of the ordinary in public.
Why would someone who is not publicly displaying their sexuality need a special mention in a legal clause?
Stop your ProgBot bullshit and answer the question that can't be logically answered.
NOW, you come up with this bullshit as a distraction. You think that you are clever by picking up on something that I might have said about appearances and presenting it out of context to try to score points. All that you are doing is to make yourself look even more pathetic and stupid then you already do.
This is not about appearances. People become aware of the gender identity and sexual orientation in many ways which I have previously discussed. That leads to discrimination which is still common in most states where state laws do do provide protections. It is for that reason that federal legislation is need. I think that you might actually be smart enough to know that but that you are just playing a sick game and desparatly trying to defend you bigotry. Now shut up.
I posted your own statement in your face and you ran away for 4 days.