Rightwingers, of whom I'm one, let the gay shit go

[bodecea]

when the will of the people is overruled by 9 arrogant lifetime judges (as it was twice in california) then the freedom of the majority to decide how they choose to live has been taken away.

The "will of the people" was overruled by 9 "arrogant lifetime judges" in 1965 too.

oopsie...

Homosexuality is not a race..it's a behavior. Regardless, if and when those same 9 (may have different names) RULE AND DEMAND their opinion to become national law over something you believe in, and the people have by a majority voted TWICE as you believed- overturn that, you'll be the first one crying over it. It doesn't matter what decision they made or what the issue was- IT WAS WRONG of them to overturn the will of the majority. Lastly, marriage is not a right..

So? What if the majority of a state votes to restrict guns....is that ok with you? Regardless of it being unconstitutional?

 

[rightwinger]

wow you really want to be a right winger.....guess its anger becuase we both know the left is wrong

All those opinions turn off the moderate voter. When the only voice of moderation is coming from the left.....that is their only choice

Anti poverty rhetoric of blacks don't want jobs......they want free stuff
Hispanics are all lazy and illegals
Women who use birth control or get abortions are sluts
Gays are degenerates

All these views chase away key voting blocks. Even worse, young people hear it and say......that is not the opinions I want to affiliate with

Conservatives are not interested in buying, bribing, saying politically correct shit, agreeing to hand over their values just to win. We get you librul Zombies will do anything and say anything to obtain power. Some things aren't worth it.. most importantly, "A man or a woman's word." That will mean nothing to the left as value, principle, honor are words that are sneered at by the Zombie cult.. so worry about yourselves. If and when we need the advice of a far left kook, we'll knock on your forehead.

Of course you are not

All you are interested in is assuring that the wealthiest Americans remain so

 

[bodecea]

Only a punk would change his moral convictions to help the party get votes.

Taking about Etch-a-Sketch?

 

[bodecea]

You lie to yourselves all the time. Believing you are superior because of your "tolerance" and "harmony." Believing that people should practice your brand of thinking is quite delusional. You want tolerance but never practice it, and when someone finally gets fed up with your crap, you call them out on it. You people are evil and misplaced in this world, toying with people's emotions as you do.

"You people"?

OMG.. Get the fuck over it.. you know exactly what he meant.. You libruls are offended by your own toenails. What a joke.

No, I don't....I don't know what he means at all. It would be nice if he explained it.....unless you are his Spokes hole.

 

[LadyGunSlinger]

The case was based on discrimination because of race. Discrimination is still discrimination. Being gay is no more a "behavior" than being attracted to someone of another race. Acting on those attractions is the "behavior", not the attractions themselves.

Comparing discrimination to discrimination isn't an insult to anyone. No one is comparing race to sexual orientation. What is compared and comparable is the discriminatin'.

(even down to some of the same language)

Same-sex or “inter-racial” marriage? Take the quiz.

Here's a gem from the George Supreme Court:

"…moral or social equality between the different races…does not in fact exist, and never can. The God of nature made it otherwise, and no human law can produce it, and no human tribunal can enforce it. There are gradations and classes throughout the universe. From the tallest archangel in Heaven, down to the meanest reptile on earth, moral and social inequalities exist, and must continue to exist throughout all eternity.”

I don't even care to argue this point to be honest because I don't have an issue with gay couples receiving equal benefits etc.. I take issue with the gay lobby using the court system to force feed the majority what a minority of people DEMAND. The day you prove homosexuality is a race, come back and talk to me about SCOTUS overturning the will of the people.

You mean like they did with the Heller decision?

I don't support the SCOTUS overturning ANY decision voted on by the people. I am a huge State's rights activist. If the DOC wants to turn in their weapons, go for it. Every fucking criminal in the country will be there on your doorstop so don't whine about funding for extra police, etc. I don't recall the district putting up a referendum on handing over their guns?? The people of California voted TWICE on gay marriage.. show me where the DOC put up the right to keep and bear arms before the people and that SCOTUS overturned that decision??

 

[bodecea]

The Loving case was a case based upon RACE which ended all RACE BASED restrictions on marriage. I know you're trying to equate the homosexual lobby and movement to the Great Civil Rights movement but that's an insult to the African American community in my opinion. The color of one's skin is not a behavior. My first grader understands that.

The case was based on discrimination because of race. Discrimination is still discrimination. Being gay is no more a "behavior" than being attracted to someone of another race. Acting on those attractions is the "behavior", not the attractions themselves.

Comparing discrimination to discrimination isn't an insult to anyone. No one is comparing race to sexual orientation. What is compared and comparable is the discriminatin'.

(even down to some of the same language)

Same-sex or “inter-racial” marriage? Take the quiz.

Here's a gem from the George Supreme Court:

"…moral or social equality between the different races…does not in fact exist, and never can. The God of nature made it otherwise, and no human law can produce it, and no human tribunal can enforce it. There are gradations and classes throughout the universe. From the tallest archangel in Heaven, down to the meanest reptile on earth, moral and social inequalities exist, and must continue to exist throughout all eternity.”

I don't even care to argue this point to be honest because I don't have an issue with gay couples receiving equal benefits etc.. I take issue with the gay lobby using the court system to force feed the majority what a minority of people DEMAND. The day you prove homosexuality is a race, come back and talk to me about SCOTUS overturning the will of the people.

So...you think discrimination can ONLY take the form of discrimination based on race?

 

[Katzndogz]

I agree...but it's against Federal Law to do it...just like it is against the law in 13 states and the District of Columbia not to "deal" with "the gheys". You've got to change the laws, but in order to not appear homophobic, you need to start with the CRA and ADA. Best of luck.

No you don't. Businesses just have to be better at the way they practice their business. There is no religious or even moral prohibition against providing services to the disabled. You never answered my question. If I must provide my service to gays and lesbians, how did I win their lawsuit against me? How is my photographer acquaintance getting away with not providing photography services to same sex weddings? Behavior is already starting to change to adjust to gay demands. Slowly, but will pick up steam as businesses share experiences.

I don't know the particulars of your case. Care to share? Did you use some other "excuse" as the basis of your discrimination?

They could not prove that I was in the business of painting portraits. Based on that, my photographer acquaintance went out of the business of wedding photography. I still paint portraits. He still photographs weddings. Instead of the easily overcome reservation of right to refuse service, we reserve the right to accept service.

I got the idea from my mechanic. He won't service the cars of black people. How does he get away with that? He doesn't perform mechanic work for anyone, then takes on just what customers he decides to take on.

There is no reason why this can't apply to anyone. If I were a baker, I could certainly refuse to bake wedding cakes. If I were a florist, I would certainly not provide arrangements for same sex weddings. Just as the two lesbians could have come in and bought any painting they liked off the wall. But they could not force me to paint their portrait.

What will happen is that there will be yet more division. Getting your cake baked means you either go to a vendor that advertises to the general public, or know someone who can personally vouch for you with the vendors that don't.

It is such a simple resolution that it's a wonder it hasn't been used forever.

 

[LadyGunSlinger]

The "will of the people" was overruled by 9 "arrogant lifetime judges" in 1965 too.

oopsie...

Homosexuality is not a race..it's a behavior. Regardless, if and when those same 9 (may have different names) RULE AND DEMAND their opinion to become national law over something you believe in, and the people have by a majority voted TWICE as you believed- overturn that, you'll be the first one crying over it. It doesn't matter what decision they made or what the issue was- IT WAS WRONG of them to overturn the will of the majority. Lastly, marriage is not a right..

So? What if the majority of a state votes to restrict guns....is that ok with you? Regardless of it being unconstitutional?

If that State decides to turn over their weapons and people who disagree stay, there.. that's their own stupidity. The will of people should be enforced so long as it doesn't usurp the US Constitution. No where in that document does it grant the right to marry.. but it does grant the right to citizens to keep and bear arms.. APPLES TO ORANGES.

 

[bodecea]

I don't even care to argue this point to be honest because I don't have an issue with gay couples receiving equal benefits etc.. I take issue with the gay lobby using the court system to force feed the majority what a minority of people DEMAND. The day you prove homosexuality is a race, come back and talk to me about SCOTUS overturning the will of the people.

You mean like they did with the Heller decision?

I don't support the SCOTUS overturning ANY decision voted on by the people. I am a huge State's rights activist. If the DOC wants to turn in their weapons, go for it. Every fucking criminal in the country will be there on your doorstop so don't whine about funding for extra police, etc. I don't recall the district putting up a referendum on handing over their guns?? The people of California voted TWICE on gay marriage.. show me where the DOC put up the right to keep and bear arms before the people and that SCOTUS overturned that decision??

So...what's the point of the Supreme Court and the Third Branch of Government then, if the Majority is allowed to pass laws on whatever they want...REGARDLESS of the Constitution?

 

[Seawytch]

I don't even care to argue this point to be honest because I don't have an issue with gay couples receiving equal benefits etc.. I take issue with the gay lobby using the court system to force feed the majority what a minority of people DEMAND. The day you prove homosexuality is a race, come back and talk to me about SCOTUS overturning the will of the people.

You mean like they did with the Heller decision?

I don't support the SCOTUS overturning ANY decision voted on by the people. I am a huge State's rights activist. If the DOC wants to turn in their weapons, go for it. Every fucking criminal in the country will be there on your doorstop so don't whine about funding for extra police, etc. I don't recall the district putting up a referendum on handing over their guns?? The people of California voted TWICE on gay marriage.. show me where the DOC put up the right to keep and bear arms before the people and that SCOTUS overturned that decision??

If you don't understand our system of government, just say so. We are a representative republic with three distinct branches; the executive, the legislative and the judicial. Each has it's role. The role of the SCOTUS is to determine which of the laws put forth by the legislative are unconstitutional. That's our system and it's been working (with a few bumps) pretty darn well for over 200 years.

We have this system, in part, to ensure that the rights of the minority are not taken away by the will of the majority.

 

[FJO]

Check your christian morality bullshit at the door and LEARN to pick your fights. Gays are a minute voting block but they DO have the support of many others.
Losing elections over trivial bullshit that only affects a few people while the debt and everything else spirals out of control makes no sense.

Lets focus on the things that matter to everyone and stop picking fights that alienate us over small things.

Sin is sin for believers so stop bitching about what Sally does with her tongue when Johnny is no better off when he envies the Harley in his neighbors garage.
If they want to partake in the hell aka marriage give it to them. It's a piece of fucking paper ultimately.

Gay marriage has never been is not now and never will be a major issue with me.

I agree.

In my youth in Communist Hungary, where pilfering and stealing was the only way to get some comfort and undeserved 'wealth' it was accepted to pilfer and steal, unless, of course, one was caught doing so.

Sex, cheating on one's spouse was never in issue, heterosexual or otherwise. There was a saying: "let them fuck as long as they don't steal".

So, I don't care about gays forming a life-long union. I don't care if they get all the benefits I am getting as a married heterosexual.

But - as we have seen, time and time again regarding the word "******" - words DO have meanings and consequences.

Those who object to the use of the "N" word cry about the history of it and claim that using it is hurtful, based on about - generously - 300-400 years of slavery in America, which, by the way ended 150 years ago, at the expense of 600,000 lives, mostly white, should remember that the word "MARRIAGE" has a history much, much longer.

If they can be offended by the word "******" which is just a mispronunciation of the word
"Negro", which is the politically correct version of "colored" which turned into "black", which morphed into the idiotic "African-American", I can be offended when some yahoo wants to change the definition of a WORD, that had one and only ONE meaning and definition for thousands of years.

Let gays be united for life. Let them enjoy spousal benefits. Let them adopt kids. Let them, after the initial glow of happiness experience the disillusion, the hurt and the reality of divorce, which is sure to come, just as it comes to hetero-sexual couples.

But be tolerant of thousands of years of tradition, and don't call it "MARRIAGE".

Find another word. It should be easy for a group of people who managed to hijack the word "GAY" and distort it to something that it is not.

 

[LadyGunSlinger]

The case was based on discrimination because of race. Discrimination is still discrimination. Being gay is no more a "behavior" than being attracted to someone of another race. Acting on those attractions is the "behavior", not the attractions themselves.

Comparing discrimination to discrimination isn't an insult to anyone. No one is comparing race to sexual orientation. What is compared and comparable is the discriminatin'.

(even down to some of the same language)

Same-sex or “inter-racial” marriage? Take the quiz.

Here's a gem from the George Supreme Court:

"…moral or social equality between the different races…does not in fact exist, and never can. The God of nature made it otherwise, and no human law can produce it, and no human tribunal can enforce it. There are gradations and classes throughout the universe. From the tallest archangel in Heaven, down to the meanest reptile on earth, moral and social inequalities exist, and must continue to exist throughout all eternity.”

I don't even care to argue this point to be honest because I don't have an issue with gay couples receiving equal benefits etc.. I take issue with the gay lobby using the court system to force feed the majority what a minority of people DEMAND. The day you prove homosexuality is a race, come back and talk to me about SCOTUS overturning the will of the people.

So...you think discrimination can ONLY take the form of discrimination based on race?

I'm not here to argue the merits of discrimination as defined through marriage.. It's none of my business.. Let the people decide. Forcing people to accept government mandates like healthcare, same-sex marriage, eminent domain is doing nothing more than creating a rogue panel of TYRANTS given WAYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYY too much power.. and a populace on the edge of revolution.. Libruls keep pushing this shit you're going to find you may not like the result.

 

[Seawytch]

No you don't. Businesses just have to be better at the way they practice their business. There is no religious or even moral prohibition against providing services to the disabled. You never answered my question. If I must provide my service to gays and lesbians, how did I win their lawsuit against me? How is my photographer acquaintance getting away with not providing photography services to same sex weddings? Behavior is already starting to change to adjust to gay demands. Slowly, but will pick up steam as businesses share experiences.

I don't know the particulars of your case. Care to share? Did you use some other "excuse" as the basis of your discrimination?

They could not prove that I was in the business of painting portraits. Based on that, my photographer acquaintance went out of the business of wedding photography. I still paint portraits. He still photographs weddings. Instead of the easily overcome reservation of right to refuse service, we reserve the right to accept service.

I got the idea from my mechanic. He won't service the cars of black people. How does he get away with that? He doesn't perform mechanic work for anyone, then takes on just what customers he decides to take on.

There is no reason why this can't apply to anyone. If I were a baker, I could certainly refuse to bake wedding cakes. If I were a florist, I would certainly not provide arrangements for same sex weddings. Just as the two lesbians could have come in and bought any painting they liked off the wall. But they could not force me to paint their portrait.

What will happen is that there will be yet more division. Getting your cake baked means you either go to a vendor that advertises to the general public, or know someone who can personally vouch for you with the vendors that don't.

It is such a simple resolution that it's a wonder it hasn't been used forever.

So you've been misrepresenting your case as this big victory and all you did was either lie or stop providing services.

It's no different than the gay bar that stopped doing all bachelor/bachelorette parties because he got tired of drunk straight girls fucking his place up.

I don't want you to have to be sneaky and hide, I want you to be up front and open. I want you to be able to put a sign on your door that says "no fags". I think that would be GREAT!

 

[LadyGunSlinger]

You mean like they did with the Heller decision?

I don't support the SCOTUS overturning ANY decision voted on by the people. I am a huge State's rights activist. If the DOC wants to turn in their weapons, go for it. Every fucking criminal in the country will be there on your doorstop so don't whine about funding for extra police, etc. I don't recall the district putting up a referendum on handing over their guns?? The people of California voted TWICE on gay marriage.. show me where the DOC put up the right to keep and bear arms before the people and that SCOTUS overturned that decision??

If you don't understand our system of government, just say so. We are a representative republic with three distinct branches; the executive, the legislative and the judicial. Each has it's role. The role of the SCOTUS is to determine which of the laws put forth by the legislative are unconstitutional. That's our system and it's been working (with a few bumps) pretty darn well for over 200 years.

We have this system, in part, to ensure that the rights of the minority are not taken away by the will of the majority.

I understand it quite well which is why you have an issue. The role of the SCOTUS is not to overturn the majority on something NOT contained in this country's founding documents, nor is it even a right.

 

[bodecea]

I don't even care to argue this point to be honest because I don't have an issue with gay couples receiving equal benefits etc.. I take issue with the gay lobby using the court system to force feed the majority what a minority of people DEMAND. The day you prove homosexuality is a race, come back and talk to me about SCOTUS overturning the will of the people.

So...you think discrimination can ONLY take the form of discrimination based on race?

I'm not here to argue the merits of discrimination as defined through marriage.. It's none of my business.. Let the people decide. Forcing people to accept government mandates like healthcare, same-sex marriage, eminent domain is doing nothing more than creating a rogue panel of TYRANTS given WAYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYY too much power.. and a populace on the edge of revolution.. Libruls keep pushing this shit you're going to find you may not like the result.

But that's exactly what you are here for. So....again. Do you think discrimination can ONLY take the form of discrimination based on race? Yes or no?

 

[Seawytch]

I don't support the SCOTUS overturning ANY decision voted on by the people. I am a huge State's rights activist. If the DOC wants to turn in their weapons, go for it. Every fucking criminal in the country will be there on your doorstop so don't whine about funding for extra police, etc. I don't recall the district putting up a referendum on handing over their guns?? The people of California voted TWICE on gay marriage.. show me where the DOC put up the right to keep and bear arms before the people and that SCOTUS overturned that decision??

If you don't understand our system of government, just say so. We are a representative republic with three distinct branches; the executive, the legislative and the judicial. Each has it's role. The role of the SCOTUS is to determine which of the laws put forth by the legislative are unconstitutional. That's our system and it's been working (with a few bumps) pretty darn well for over 200 years.

We have this system, in part, to ensure that the rights of the minority are not taken away by the will of the majority.

I understand it quite well which is why you have an issue. The role of the SCOTUS is not to overturn the majority on something NOT contained in this country's founding documents, nor is it even a right.

So you believe that the only rights you have as an individual are those expressly enumerated in the Constitution?

 

[LadyGunSlinger]

So...you think discrimination can ONLY take the form of discrimination based on race?

I'm not here to argue the merits of discrimination as defined through marriage.. It's none of my business.. Let the people decide. Forcing people to accept government mandates like healthcare, same-sex marriage, eminent domain is doing nothing more than creating a rogue panel of TYRANTS given WAYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYY too much power.. and a populace on the edge of revolution.. Libruls keep pushing this shit you're going to find you may not like the result.

But that's exactly what you are here for. So....again. Do you think discrimination can ONLY take the form of discrimination based on race? Yes or no?

You determine why I am here? LOL Guess what? You don't. I am in this thread arguing the merits of liberty.. pure and simple. Be it against you librul dingbats or the RINOs in my own party. I don't blindly follow anyone , like you lemmings.. so you don't get to dictate to me why I am here or any place else Petey.

 

[bodecea]

I don't support the SCOTUS overturning ANY decision voted on by the people. I am a huge State's rights activist. If the DOC wants to turn in their weapons, go for it. Every fucking criminal in the country will be there on your doorstop so don't whine about funding for extra police, etc. I don't recall the district putting up a referendum on handing over their guns?? The people of California voted TWICE on gay marriage.. show me where the DOC put up the right to keep and bear arms before the people and that SCOTUS overturned that decision??

If you don't understand our system of government, just say so. We are a representative republic with three distinct branches; the executive, the legislative and the judicial. Each has it's role. The role of the SCOTUS is to determine which of the laws put forth by the legislative are unconstitutional. That's our system and it's been working (with a few bumps) pretty darn well for over 200 years.

We have this system, in part, to ensure that the rights of the minority are not taken away by the will of the majority.

I understand it quite well which is why you have an issue. The role of the SCOTUS is not to overturn the majority on something NOT contained in this country's founding documents, nor is it even a right.

So...Every amendment past the first 10 are not part of "country's founding documents." They are no good too? The 14th Amendment is no good? The Supreme Court has no right to determine that laws (passed by the people or by the legislature) are unconstitutional based on any amendment past the first 10?

 

[LadyGunSlinger]

If you don't understand our system of government, just say so. We are a representative republic with three distinct branches; the executive, the legislative and the judicial. Each has it's role. The role of the SCOTUS is to determine which of the laws put forth by the legislative are unconstitutional. That's our system and it's been working (with a few bumps) pretty darn well for over 200 years.

We have this system, in part, to ensure that the rights of the minority are not taken away by the will of the majority.

I understand it quite well which is why you have an issue. The role of the SCOTUS is not to overturn the majority on something NOT contained in this country's founding documents, nor is it even a right.

So you believe that the only rights you have as an individual are those expressly enumerated in the Constitution?

I am an Originalist.. I believe the SCOTUS had ZERO business in ROE or Windsor. End of story.

 

[bodecea]

I don't know the particulars of your case. Care to share? Did you use some other "excuse" as the basis of your discrimination?

They could not prove that I was in the business of painting portraits. Based on that, my photographer acquaintance went out of the business of wedding photography. I still paint portraits. He still photographs weddings. Instead of the easily overcome reservation of right to refuse service, we reserve the right to accept service.

I got the idea from my mechanic. He won't service the cars of black people. How does he get away with that? He doesn't perform mechanic work for anyone, then takes on just what customers he decides to take on.

There is no reason why this can't apply to anyone. If I were a baker, I could certainly refuse to bake wedding cakes. If I were a florist, I would certainly not provide arrangements for same sex weddings. Just as the two lesbians could have come in and bought any painting they liked off the wall. But they could not force me to paint their portrait.

What will happen is that there will be yet more division. Getting your cake baked means you either go to a vendor that advertises to the general public, or know someone who can personally vouch for you with the vendors that don't.

It is such a simple resolution that it's a wonder it hasn't been used forever.

So you've been misrepresenting your case as this big victory and all you did was either lie or stop providing services.

It's no different than the gay bar that stopped doing all bachelor/bachelorette parties because he got tired of drunk straight girls fucking his place up.

I don't want you to have to be sneaky and hide, I want you to be up front and open. I want you to be able to put a sign on your door that says "no fags". I think that would be GREAT!

She got the idea from her mechanic that doesn't accept work from black people...........