Rubio goes on homophobic rant ending political career.

[Freewill]

I'm glad Marco Rubio said this. Please, I hope that more GOP candidates say this kind of stuff. Because the crazy-assed stuff that wins an Elephant the nomination will lose him the GE, because in the GE, that stuff is a poison pill.

So, Sen. Rubio, you just keep on talking. I'm cool with that.

Keep thinking that. I guess he struck a nerve.

From what the SJW's are doing in general, the progressive playbook is known to everyone.

Not with me. I'm not gay, but I am acutely aware that the more hateful stuff Righties like Rubio say, the more they hurt the GOP in the GE. Or have you Righties learned absolutely nothing from 2012?

How many gays do you think there are in the USA? I know but I want to see your guess.

How many gays do there have to be for them to qualify for their constitutional rights?

What Constitutional right do they now not qualify?

 

[NYcarbineer]

I'm glad Marco Rubio said this. Please, I hope that more GOP candidates say this kind of stuff. Because the crazy-assed stuff that wins an Elephant the nomination will lose him the GE, because in the GE, that stuff is a poison pill.

So, Sen. Rubio, you just keep on talking. I'm cool with that.

Keep thinking that. I guess he struck a nerve.

From what the SJW's are doing in general, the progressive playbook is known to everyone.

Not with me. I'm not gay, but I am acutely aware that the more hateful stuff Righties like Rubio say, the more they hurt the GOP in the GE. Or have you Righties learned absolutely nothing from 2012?

How many gays do you think there are in the USA? I know but I want to see your guess.

How many gays do there have to be for them to qualify for their constitutional rights?

What Constitutional right do they now not qualify?

Equal treatment under the law.

 

[ShootSpeeders]

What Constitutional right do they now not qualify?

Equal treatment under the law.

Really?. So how do you liberals justify affirmative action, the govt mandated discrimination of white males?

 

[kiwiman127]

Not with me. I'm not gay, but I am acutely aware that the more hateful stuff Righties like Rubio say, the more they hurt the GOP in the GE. Or have you Righties learned absolutely nothing from 2012?

I prefer the lessons from 2014.

You folks sure loved the election of 2014 and for some odd reason think you got a mandate.
Let's see just 36.6 of eligible voters voted, the GOP got 52% of the vote which translates to a little over 19% of all eligible voters, throw in some gerrymaking and walla, you have your 2014 election results. Not exactly a mandate.
The presidential election years always have a much higher voter turnout with more democrats and independent voters participating. Even with the gerrymaking, the GOP will have a much more difficult time.

It has just as much play as the 2012 results, and you don't have Obama to up the voter response in your needed demographics.

I have never voted for Obama, bucko. Try another approach, try reality.

What third party turd did you throw your vote behind?

I don't necessarily have to vote for a third party, I vote for moderates such as my moderate Republican US House Representative and in 2012 I wrote in Jon Huntsman for President.
The turd parties are the GOP and Dems.

 

[auditor0007]

I'm glad Marco Rubio said this. Please, I hope that more GOP candidates say this kind of stuff. Because the crazy-assed stuff that wins an Elephant the nomination will lose him the GE, because in the GE, that stuff is a poison pill.

So, Sen. Rubio, you just keep on talking. I'm cool with that.

Keep thinking that. I guess he struck a nerve.

From what the SJW's are doing in general, the progressive playbook is known to everyone.

Not with me. I'm not gay, but I am acutely aware that the more hateful stuff Righties like Rubio say, the more they hurt the GOP in the GE. Or have you Righties learned absolutely nothing from 2012?

They haven't learned a thing. In fact they believe that the only way to win is to actually say even crazier shit.

 

[Nosmo King]

Marco Rubio: Gay Rights 'A Real And Present Danger' To Freedom

Marco Rubio was the subject of a fawning profile on today’s edition of “The 700 Club,” in which host Pat Robertson hailed the GOP presidential candidate as “the Democrats’ worst nightmare.”

In an interview with the Christian Broadcasting Network’s David Brody, Rubio warned that gay marriage represents “a real and present danger” to America because gay rights advocates are bent on labeling any anti-gay messages, including those from churches, as “hate speech.”

“We are at the water’s edge of the argument that mainstream Christian teaching is hate speech because today we’ve reached the point in our society where if you do not support same-sex marriage, you are labeled a homophobe and a hater,” Rubio said. “So what’s the next step after that? After they’re done going after individuals, the next step is to argue that the teachings of mainstream Christianity, the catechism of the Catholic Church, is hate speech. That’s a real and present danger.”

During a previous CBN interview, Rubio criticized gay marriage supporters for trying to sway the Supreme Court with “a ridiculous and absurd reading of the U.S. Constitution.”

When your base is that hateful and ignorant, you must cut them lose and rally the moderates and centrists.

But no, the GOP continue to open their big tent to most hateful and despicable people.

A couple points to ponder:


Mainstream Christian dogma is not the law of the land. No matter how vitriolic the anti-marriage equality speech is, it does not have the weight of law.

There is no real reason to deny marriage equality that is not deeply rooted in homophobia. And homophobia is not a justification to deny our fellow citizens equal access to contract law. No one has ever proffered a legitimate reason or stance demonstrating tangible harm to society after marriage equality happens. Therefore, Rubio is wrong on so many positions. Marriage equality is not an attack on Christianity. Christianity (even though I am a Christian myself) be damned because it does not pipe the tune we Americans must dance to.

 

[BULLDOG]

Marco Rubio: Gay Rights 'A Real And Present Danger' To Freedom

Marco Rubio was the subject of a fawning profile on today’s edition of “The 700 Club,” in which host Pat Robertson hailed the GOP presidential candidate as “the Democrats’ worst nightmare.”

In an interview with the Christian Broadcasting Network’s David Brody, Rubio warned that gay marriage represents “a real and present danger” to America because gay rights advocates are bent on labeling any anti-gay messages, including those from churches, as “hate speech.”

“We are at the water’s edge of the argument that mainstream Christian teaching is hate speech because today we’ve reached the point in our society where if you do not support same-sex marriage, you are labeled a homophobe and a hater,” Rubio said. “So what’s the next step after that? After they’re done going after individuals, the next step is to argue that the teachings of mainstream Christianity, the catechism of the Catholic Church, is hate speech. That’s a real and present danger.”

During a previous CBN interview, Rubio criticized gay marriage supporters for trying to sway the Supreme Court with “a ridiculous and absurd reading of the U.S. Constitution.”

When your base is that hateful and ignorant, you must cut them lose and rally the moderates and centrists.

But no, the GOP continue to open their big tent to most hateful and despicable people.

Fags are a pain in the ass...literally and figuratively.

So curious till you just had to try at least once. Right?

 

[BULLDOG]

Whether you butt humping queers and their lovers know it or not, the vast, VAST majority of people on the planet have, do and always will find homosexuality to be a disgusting, perverted, sexual mental illness. That will never change, because NORMAL people, HETEROSEXUAL people, are born with it. It's a natural revulsion to the thought of being attracted to and/or having your ass reamed by the same sex.

So don't mistake people loosening their opinion on letting fags marry each other with more people beginning to like butt fucking homosexuality, because that ain't happenin'.

Rubio will be fine, and is still doing good in the polls.

Deal with it, progtards.

Even though you worded it in a typical right wing way, you are right. Nobody will become gay just because gays will receive the rights they deserve. Rubio's chances were nonexistent to start with, and that probably hasn't changed much either.

 

[tinydancer]

I'm glad Marco Rubio said this. Please, I hope that more GOP candidates say this kind of stuff. Because the crazy-assed stuff that wins an Elephant the nomination will lose him the GE, because in the GE, that stuff is a poison pill.

So, Sen. Rubio, you just keep on talking. I'm cool with that.

Keep thinking that. I guess he struck a nerve.

From what the SJW's are doing in general, the progressive playbook is known to everyone.

Not with me. I'm not gay, but I am acutely aware that the more hateful stuff Righties like Rubio say, the more they hurt the GOP in the GE. Or have you Righties learned absolutely nothing from 2012?

I prefer the lessons from 2014.

How 'bout the lessons from 2012 and 2008 when Obama trounced your guys?

2014 was historic. What part of Republicans beat the ever living shit out of Democrats did you miss?

 

[JimH52]

This is beginning to remind me of 2008 and 2012. The GOP holds its primaries and there is a winner, who has shifted far enough to the right to win, and the celebration begins. Then when the nominee begins to actually speak and explain what he meant when he made the far right extreme statements during the Primaries.....he loses voters for the General.

The trick for the successful GOP nominee is to move far enough to the right to win the primary, but not so far as to alienate the majority of the voters in the General. So far, so one has come up with a successful formula. Try as they may, their extreme performance in the Primaries usually leaves them labeled with the coveted...."Loon" tag. HILARIOUS!

 

[SillyWabbit]

Marco Rubio: Gay Rights 'A Real And Present Danger' To Freedom

Marco Rubio was the subject of a fawning profile on today’s edition of “The 700 Club,” in which host Pat Robertson hailed the GOP presidential candidate as “the Democrats’ worst nightmare.”

In an interview with the Christian Broadcasting Network’s David Brody, Rubio warned that gay marriage represents “a real and present danger” to America because gay rights advocates are bent on labeling any anti-gay messages, including those from churches, as “hate speech.”

“We are at the water’s edge of the argument that mainstream Christian teaching is hate speech because today we’ve reached the point in our society where if you do not support same-sex marriage, you are labeled a homophobe and a hater,” Rubio said. “So what’s the next step after that? After they’re done going after individuals, the next step is to argue that the teachings of mainstream Christianity, the catechism of the Catholic Church, is hate speech. That’s a real and present danger.”

During a previous CBN interview, Rubio criticized gay marriage supporters for trying to sway the Supreme Court with “a ridiculous and absurd reading of the U.S. Constitution.”

When your base is that hateful and ignorant, you must cut them lose and rally the moderates and centrists.

But no, the GOP continue to open their big tent to most hateful and despicable people.

Hate to have to break it to Rubio but if you oppose gay marriage you ARE a homophobe and a hater,

because why else would you oppose it?

I don't know...maybe because there's a big chunk of people in this world who still believe marriage is supposed to be between one man and one woman. That doesn't make them hateful. People are allowed to disagree with you and not be labeled hateful. Aren't they?

 

[bendog]

Marco Rubio: Gay Rights 'A Real And Present Danger' To Freedom

Marco Rubio was the subject of a fawning profile on today’s edition of “The 700 Club,” in which host Pat Robertson hailed the GOP presidential candidate as “the Democrats’ worst nightmare.”

In an interview with the Christian Broadcasting Network’s David Brody, Rubio warned that gay marriage represents “a real and present danger” to America because gay rights advocates are bent on labeling any anti-gay messages, including those from churches, as “hate speech.”

“We are at the water’s edge of the argument that mainstream Christian teaching is hate speech because today we’ve reached the point in our society where if you do not support same-sex marriage, you are labeled a homophobe and a hater,” Rubio said. “So what’s the next step after that? After they’re done going after individuals, the next step is to argue that the teachings of mainstream Christianity, the catechism of the Catholic Church, is hate speech. That’s a real and present danger.”

During a previous CBN interview, Rubio criticized gay marriage supporters for trying to sway the Supreme Court with “a ridiculous and absurd reading of the U.S. Constitution.”

When your base is that hateful and ignorant, you must cut them lose and rally the moderates and centrists.

But no, the GOP continue to open their big tent to most hateful and despicable people.

Hate to have to break it to Rubio but if you oppose gay marriage you ARE a homophobe and a hater,

because why else would you oppose it?

I don't know...maybe because there's a big chunk of people in this world who still believe marriage is supposed to be between one man and one woman. That doesn't make them hateful. People are allowed to disagree with you and not be labeled hateful. Aren't they?

Huck's comments in the OP's link are that PA laws should not compel Christians to serve gays, and discrimination is .... ok.

 

[Nosmo King]

I'm glad Marco Rubio said this. Please, I hope that more GOP candidates say this kind of stuff. Because the crazy-assed stuff that wins an Elephant the nomination will lose him the GE, because in the GE, that stuff is a poison pill.

So, Sen. Rubio, you just keep on talking. I'm cool with that.

Keep thinking that. I guess he struck a nerve.

From what the SJW's are doing in general, the progressive playbook is known to everyone.

Not with me. I'm not gay, but I am acutely aware that the more hateful stuff Righties like Rubio say, the more they hurt the GOP in the GE. Or have you Righties learned absolutely nothing from 2012?

I prefer the lessons from 2014.

How 'bout the lessons from 2012 and 2008 when Obama trounced your guys?

2014 was historic. What part of Republicans beat the ever living shit out of Democrats did you miss?

2014 wasn't history making. It was history repeating. Every two term president since WWII has lost political control of congress during the mid terms of his second term.

 

[Nosmo King]

Marco Rubio: Gay Rights 'A Real And Present Danger' To Freedom

Marco Rubio was the subject of a fawning profile on today’s edition of “The 700 Club,” in which host Pat Robertson hailed the GOP presidential candidate as “the Democrats’ worst nightmare.”

In an interview with the Christian Broadcasting Network’s David Brody, Rubio warned that gay marriage represents “a real and present danger” to America because gay rights advocates are bent on labeling any anti-gay messages, including those from churches, as “hate speech.”

“We are at the water’s edge of the argument that mainstream Christian teaching is hate speech because today we’ve reached the point in our society where if you do not support same-sex marriage, you are labeled a homophobe and a hater,” Rubio said. “So what’s the next step after that? After they’re done going after individuals, the next step is to argue that the teachings of mainstream Christianity, the catechism of the Catholic Church, is hate speech. That’s a real and present danger.”

During a previous CBN interview, Rubio criticized gay marriage supporters for trying to sway the Supreme Court with “a ridiculous and absurd reading of the U.S. Constitution.”

When your base is that hateful and ignorant, you must cut them lose and rally the moderates and centrists.

But no, the GOP continue to open their big tent to most hateful and despicable people.

Hate to have to break it to Rubio but if you oppose gay marriage you ARE a homophobe and a hater,

because why else would you oppose it?

Is there such a thing as a "Christian exemption" to law?
I don't know...maybe because there's a big chunk of people in this world who still believe marriage is supposed to be between one man and one woman. That doesn't make them hateful. People are allowed to disagree with you and not be labeled hateful. Aren't they?

Huck's comments in the OP's link are that PA laws should not compel Christians to serve gays, and discrimination is .... ok.

Is there such a thing as a "Christian Exemption" to the rule of law?

 

[M14 Shooter]

When your base is that hateful and ignorant, you must cut them lose and rally the moderates and centrists.
But no, the GOP continue to open their big tent to most hateful and despicable people.

Why do you believe that opposing same-sex marriage is hate speech?

 

[Nosmo King]

When your base is that hateful and ignorant, you must cut them lose and rally the moderates and centrists.
But no, the GOP continue to open their big tent to most hateful and despicable people.

Why do you believe that opposing same-sex marriage is hate speech?

Can you make an argument against marriage equality that demonstrates real, tangible harm as a result of marriage equality? Can you make an argument against marriage equality that does not disparage, denigrate, belittle or dismiss homosexuality?

 

[NLT]

gay rights advocates are bent on labeling any anti-gay messages, including those from churches, as “hate speech.”

“We are at the water’s edge of the argument that mainstream Christian teaching is hate speech because today we’ve reached the point in our society where if you do not support same-sex marriage, you are labeled a homophobe and a hater,” Rubio said. “So what’s the next step after that? After they’re done going after individuals, the next step is to argue that the teachings of mainstream Christianity, the catechism of the Catholic Church, is hate speech. That’s a real and present danger.”


That statement is 100% true and if you liberals deny it you are lying your ass off, and don't bother calling me a christian wing nut because I am agnostic.

 

[Freewill]

Keep thinking that. I guess he struck a nerve.

From what the SJW's are doing in general, the progressive playbook is known to everyone.

Not with me. I'm not gay, but I am acutely aware that the more hateful stuff Righties like Rubio say, the more they hurt the GOP in the GE. Or have you Righties learned absolutely nothing from 2012?

How many gays do you think there are in the USA? I know but I want to see your guess.

How many gays do there have to be for them to qualify for their constitutional rights?

What Constitutional right do they now not qualify?

Equal treatment under the law.

I am not saying that it won't be perverted to match what some want but you fail in this regard. Read here:

Equal Protection: An Overview
The Equal Protection Clause of the 14th amendment of the U.S. Constitution prohibits states from denying any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. See U.S. Const. amend. XIV. In other words, the laws of a state must treat an individual in the same manner as others in similar conditions and circumstances. A violation would occur, for example, if a state prohibited an individual from entering into an employment contract because he or she was a member of a particular race. The equal protection clause is not intended to provide "equality" among individuals or classes but only "equal application" of the laws. The result, therefore, of a law is not relevant so long as there is no discrimination in its application. By denying states the ability to discriminate, the equal protection clause of the Constitution is crucial to the protection of civil rights. See Civil Rights.

Generally, the question of whether the equal protection clause has been violated arises when a state grants a particular class of individuals the right to engage in an activity yet denies other individuals the same right. There is no clear rule for deciding when a classification is unconstitutional. The Supreme Court has dictated the application of different tests depending on the type of classification and its effect on fundamental rights. Traditionally, the Court finds a state classification constitutional if it has "a rational basis" to a "legitimate state purpose." The Supreme Court, however, has applied more stringent analysis in certain cases. It will "strictly scrutinize" a distinction when it embodies a "suspect classification." In order for a classification to be subject to strict scrutiny, it must be shown that the state law or its administration is meant to discriminate. Usually, if a purpose to discriminate is found the classification will be strictly scrutinized if it is based on race, national origin, or, in some situations, non U.S. citizenship (the suspect classes). In order for a classification to be found permissible under this test it must be proven, by the state, that there is a compelling interest to the law and that the classification is necessary to further that interest. The Court will also apply a strict scrutiny test if the classification interferes with fundamental rights such as first amendment rights, the right to privacy, or the right to travel. The Supreme Court also requires states to show more than a rational basis (though it does not apply the strictly scrutiny test) for classifications based on gender or a child's status as illegitimate.

The 14th amendment is not by its terms applicable to the federal government. Actions by the federal government, however, that classify individuals in a discriminatory manner will, under similar circumstances, violate the due process of the fifth amendment. See U.S. Const. amend. V.

Equal Protection Wex Legal Dictionary Encyclopedia LII Legal Information Institute

 

[Freewill]

gay rights advocates are bent on labeling any anti-gay messages, including those from churches, as “hate speech.”

“We are at the water’s edge of the argument that mainstream Christian teaching is hate speech because today we’ve reached the point in our society where if you do not support same-sex marriage, you are labeled a homophobe and a hater,” Rubio said. “So what’s the next step after that? After they’re done going after individuals, the next step is to argue that the teachings of mainstream Christianity, the catechism of the Catholic Church, is hate speech. That’s a real and present danger.”


That statement is 100% true and if you liberals deny it you are lying your ass off, and don't bother calling me a christian wing nut because I am agnostic.

The progressive argument on almost every subject.

First label opposition as Anti.
then label opposition as hate
Then throw in denier at every opportunity
Then name "rights" that only exist because they say they exist.

Do the above in every situation because the facts of the matter isn't really important, it is winning and making people conform to the progressive's way of thinking, right or wrong.

 

[JoshuaZ]

Whether you butt humping queers and their lovers know it or not, the vast, VAST majority of people on the planet have, do and always will find homosexuality to be a disgusting, perverted, sexual mental illness. That will never change, because NORMAL people, HETEROSEXUAL people, are born with it. It's a natural revulsion to the thought of being attracted to and/or having your ass reamed by the same sex.

So don't mistake people loosening their opinion on letting fags marry each other with more people beginning to like butt fucking homosexuality, because that ain't happenin'.

Rubio will be fine, and is still doing good in the polls.

Deal with it, progtards.

Even though you worded it in a typical right wing way, you are right. Nobody will become gay just because gays will receive the rights they deserve. Rubio's chances were nonexistent to start with, and that probably hasn't changed much either.

You think that Rubio's chances are very low for the nomination or very low for the general or both? How low?