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

[bodecea]

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.

So...you don't believe ANY of the Amendments past the Original Bill of Rights apply? So you don't vote, right? (Because the 19th Amendment didn't come along until 1920.)

 

[FJO]

Simple solution for Republicans on poverty. Find them jobs like you are always telling them to get. Find a way to funnel jobs to impoverished areas, a way for poor people to qualify for good jobs

Let them know that they owe their jobs to Republucan policies and they will vote Republucan forever

Right now, all you offer are threats and ridicule

Of course, the Republicans just have to do what Democrats did: Democratic party funneled jobs to impoverished areas, like downtown Detroit, Washington, D.C. and Chicago. That stopped the drive by shootings, the killings, the whoring, the pimping and drug dealings, as we all know.

What did Democrats ever do for impoverished WHITE areas? Except for Ku Klux Klan Grand Wizard Robert Byrd in West Virginia, precious little.

Being slaves of the Democratic Party for the next 200 years (according to LBJ) in plain view of absolutely no visible results is sure sign of mental instability, that can not be cured, except by accelerated abortions in critical areas.

When it comes to ridicule, I must hand it to Democrats. They ridicule, demean, excoriate, demonize and besmirch all blacks, women and gays who happen to have the courage to profess a political view that is not Democrat.

Who said anything about white or black?

Poverty is still poverty and Republicans offer nothing but ridicule. People want jobs that they can support their families on and all Republucans are offering is tax cuts for the wealthy

You missed my point, and I think you did it on purpose, since you have no valid answer to my post.

The Democrat party has been spending probably trillions, but at least billions in its war on poverty. Admittedly, it is /was just as futile as the Republican efforts on the War on Drugs.

When you used the term "impoverished areas" I have seen them. I did volunteer work with Habitat for Humanity in black Overtown in Miami as well as with Apaplachian Service Project in white Chavies, KY.

I am not sure if your personal experience to help poor people, black or white, is similar to my experience, but I give you the benefit of doubt.

Like you say, poverty is poverty. And the ridicule Democrats heap on blacks (male or female) and women Black or white) is still ridicule.

When I hear from you or anyone like you even the slightest recognition and admittance that women and blacks who happen to be conservatives are not bigots, racists, Uncle Toms, traitors to their gender/race, I will give you credit for your posts.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

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.

There is no ‘gay lobby,’ that’s a myth contrived by the partisan right and social conservatives.

Equal protection jurisprudence with regard to discrimination pertains to more than just race or ethnicity. The Court has consistently held that the Fifth Amendment Liberty Clause and the Due Process Clauses of the Fifth and 14th Amendments guarantee every person the right to self-determination, to define himself as an individual, whether ‘naturally occurring’ or as a manifestation of his free will:

The State cannot demean [homosexuals] or control their destiny by making their private sexual conduct a crime. Their right to liberty under the Due Process Clause gives them the full right to engage in their conduct without intervention of the government. “It is a promise of the Constitution that there is a realm of personal liberty which the government may not enter.”

LAWRENCE V. TEXAS

Consequently, same-sex couples and homosexuals do not ‘have to be a race’ to be subject to discrimination, and they have the same right to seek relief in the courts when the state – reflecting the animus of the majority – acts in a manner offensive to the Constitution, where laws discriminating against homosexuals, such as Proposition 8 and DOMA, are appropriately and justly invalidated.

 

[Katzndogz]

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...........

People should be able to put a sign on their door that says no fags, or no Christians if that's what they choose to do.

Otherwise, they have to be more clever about it. No doubt reservation of service will become more widespread the more impositions there are.

 

[Seawytch]

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.

Are you sure you know which case is Windsor? Edith Windsor got hit with a $350K tax bill because her legal marriage wasn't recognized by the federal government.

 

[daveman]

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

Yes, and opposition to gay marriage is the key to making sure that happens.

I'd give you a moment to come to grips with your idiocy, but an eternity wouldn't be sufficient.

 

[Seawytch]

Does a female "originalist" believe they should have the right to vote?

 

[bodecea]

Does a female "originalist" believe they should have the right to vote?

I wondered the same thing....and asked her. No answer yet.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

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.

If you and others on the right are tried of the Court ruling on such issues, then there’s a simple solution:

The Federal government, states, and local jurisdictions can stop enacting measures that clearly discriminate against a class of persons predicated solely on animus toward that class of persons, including, but not limited to, same-sex couples, homosexuals, transgender persons, and women exercising their right to privacy.

In fact, the Supreme Court need never hear such a case again if conservatives would simply acknowledge and respect the rights of individuals to conduct their private lives as they see fit free from interference by the state.

The inconsistency of the right is remarkable in this regard, as conservative dogma is supposed to mandate ‘less government,’ yet conservatives seek to expand the size and authority of government at the expense of individual liberty.

You and other conservatives remain at liberty to hate homosexuals and despise single women who are sexually active, but you are not at liberty to violate their civil rights.

 

[Katzndogz]

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.

Are you sure you know which case is Windsor? Edith Windsor got hit with a $350K tax bill because her legal marriage wasn't recognized by the federal government.

If her legal marriage wasn't recognized by the federal government, it was not a legal marriage.

 

[Katzndogz]

The government is obligated to protect the rights of unborn Americans on the same basis as it protects the rights of the snail darter fish or the peninsula blue butterfly.

Civil rights exist only so long as they do not impose on the civil rights of others.

 

[bodecea]

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

Are you sure you know which case is Windsor? Edith Windsor got hit with a $350K tax bill because her legal marriage wasn't recognized by the federal government.

If her legal marriage wasn't recognized by the federal government, it was not a legal marriage.

It is now.

 

[bodecea]

The government is obligated to protect the rights of unborn Americans on the same basis as it protects the rights of the snail darter fish or the peninsula blue butterfly.

Civil rights exist only so long as they do not impose on the civil rights of others.

How does legal gay marriage impose on the civil rights of others?

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

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

Are you sure you know which case is Windsor? Edith Windsor got hit with a $350K tax bill because her legal marriage wasn't recognized by the federal government.

If her legal marriage wasn't recognized by the federal government, it was not a legal marriage.

Nonsense.

‘Federal recognition’ is not required for state laws to be valid and binding.

And in Windsor, the Federal government can not elect what marriages it will recognize and not recognize concerning Federal laws and policies.

The Federal government, as is the case with state governments and state laws, must allow all persons access to Federal laws and policies.

 

[Katzndogz]

The government is obligated to protect the rights of unborn Americans on the same basis as it protects the rights of the snail darter fish or the peninsula blue butterfly.

Civil rights exist only so long as they do not impose on the civil rights of others.

How does legal gay marriage impose on the civil rights of others?

We've gone over that, at length.

 

[Crackerjaxon]

The "gay rights movement" is representative of all that is wrong with progressives. They've tarted up the 14th Amendment to cover gay marriage. Gee, it never did before.

They've hijacked scientific inquiry with silly studies that supposedly prove homosexuality is not a choice.

They've created a fictional minority of "gays."

All of this to cater to the agenda of a vocal gaggle of malcontents who want to marry only for government benefits.

To hell with 'em.

 

[Votto]

What's your fucking problem?? Why do you always think you can start threads preaching to conservatives about what they're allowed to believe, and what's off fucking limits according to you? Why don't you mind your own damn biznez for once, worry about your girlfriend or wife who collects welfare which almost caused you to leave her.. blah blah blah.. STFU already Gramps.. DAMN


You sound like Bloomberg telling people what to do.. Get over yourself!

Because if I can't call out my own I have no business bitching at the other side. I'm not a fucking drone. If you don't like it find the ignore feature and utilize it.

But that is just it. The government is making it our business. Why should government be involved in marriage at all? That is the question.

 

[Vandalshandle]

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.

There is hope for a two party system after all! Somebody "gets it"!!!!!!!

 

[bodecea]

The government is obligated to protect the rights of unborn Americans on the same basis as it protects the rights of the snail darter fish or the peninsula blue butterfly.

Civil rights exist only so long as they do not impose on the civil rights of others.

How does legal gay marriage impose on the civil rights of others?

We've gone over that, at length.

So it will be easy for you to repeat your answer.

 

[bodecea]

The "gay rights movement" is representative of all that is wrong with progressives. They've tarted up the 14th Amendment to cover gay marriage. Gee, it never did before.

They've hijacked scientific inquiry with silly studies that supposedly prove homosexuality is not a choice.

They've created a fictional minority of "gays."

All of this to cater to the agenda of a vocal gaggle of malcontents who want to marry only for government benefits.

To hell with 'em.

Then, don't come to our weddings.