Rubio goes on homophobic rant ending political career.

[Lilah]

PEACH174 SAID:

“Where have I ever said that their civil rights should be deprived?
Where has Rubio ever said that?”

Here:

'Mr. Rubio opposes same-sex marriage, saying he believes “the institution of marriage is defined as the union of one man and one woman.”'

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/14/us/politics/marco-rubio-on-the-issues.html

To seek to deny same-sex couples access to marriage law in violation of the 14th Amendment, as Rubio advocates doing, in fact seeks to deny gay Americans their civil rights.

Rubio's position on the issue exhibits his ignorance of the law, his contempt for the Constitution and its case law, and the rule of law.

!4th Amendment was written for race (color) discrimination not a lifestyle.

And yet it says all persons not all persons of color.

It does not apply to social lifestyles.

Is forced female circumcision lifestyle, or religion?

It's a crime

 

[peach174]

...the Federal Government should not be in the business of any laws on social issues.
It should be up to the States.

Whomever did you learn that nonsense from BTW? And that's what it is.

American History College class.

Next time go to a real school. What you attended obviously wasn't.

You think the University of Denver is not a real school?
Wow

Stop deflecting and look up the SUPREME COURT cases I cited.

Deflection?
I answered Paint MYHOUSE

 

[there4eyeM]

...and female circumcision...

 

[NYcarbineer]

...the Federal Government should not be in the business of any laws on social issues.
It should be up to the States.

Whomever did you learn that nonsense from BTW? And that's what it is.

American History College class.

In Reynolds v. United States, the court case that denied Mormons the religious freedom argument for polygamy,

the Court said this:

." The court considered that if polygamy was allowed, someone might eventually argue that human sacrifice was a necessary part of their religion,

and "to permit this would be to make the professed doctrines of religious belief superior to the law of the land, and in effect to permit every citizen to become a law unto himself."

The Court believed the First Amendment forbade Congress from legislating against opinion, but allowed it to legislate against action."

Do you agree or disagree?

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

PEACH174 SAID:
"Laws should be made so that they are not discriminated against, not by force by others who disagree.
Which is what I have been saying all along is that the Federal Government should not be in the business of any laws on social issues.
It should be up to the States."

Then what you have been saying 'all along' is ignorant, ridiculous, and wrong.

The issue of same-sex couples accessing state marriage law has nothing to do with the Federal government, save that of the courts compelled to review laws hostile to gay Americans; this is an issue between the states and gay American citizens who reside in the states, where states have enacted measures seeking to deny same-sex couples their 14th Amendment right to equal protection of the law.

This is in fact a civil rights issue, a Constitutional issue, and a legal issue – not merely a 'social issue.'

And it was 'up to the states' to obey the 14th Amendment and allow same-sex couples access to marriage law they're eligible to participate in; instead the states sought to deny same-sex couples their civil rights, enacting measures repugnant to the Constitution, where gay Americans were left with no other recourse than to file suit in Federal court – the states have only themselves to blame for their un-Constitutional measures being invalidated.

 

[peach174]

So if human sacrifice is a 'sincerely held religious belief' the US govt. should be powerless to stop the practice?

We as a Nation from it's beginning have never been the Aztecs and we never will be.
Do come back to the real world.

So you don't really want religious freedom. You want the GOVERNMENT to decide which religions are acceptable and which aren't.

Bingo.

Just because you think that, does not make it correct.
Like I said, come back to reality.

You don't want polygamists to have religious freedom in this country do you? You want the GOVERNMENT to keep polygamists from having any religious rights, don't you?

No, I think that polygamists should be left alone and government should not be involved.

 

[NYcarbineer]

PEACH174 SAID:

“Where have I ever said that their civil rights should be deprived?
Where has Rubio ever said that?”

Here:

'Mr. Rubio opposes same-sex marriage, saying he believes “the institution of marriage is defined as the union of one man and one woman.”'

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/14/us/politics/marco-rubio-on-the-issues.html

To seek to deny same-sex couples access to marriage law in violation of the 14th Amendment, as Rubio advocates doing, in fact seeks to deny gay Americans their civil rights.

Rubio's position on the issue exhibits his ignorance of the law, his contempt for the Constitution and its case law, and the rule of law.

!4th Amendment was written for race (color) discrimination not a lifestyle.

And yet it says all persons not all persons of color.

It does not apply to social lifestyles.

Is forced female circumcision lifestyle, or religion?

It's a crime

Not according to Peach. If it's part of your religion, it trumps the law.

 

[NYcarbineer]

We as a Nation from it's beginning have never been the Aztecs and we never will be.
Do come back to the real world.

So you don't really want religious freedom. You want the GOVERNMENT to decide which religions are acceptable and which aren't.

Bingo.

Just because you think that, does not make it correct.
Like I said, come back to reality.

You don't want polygamists to have religious freedom in this country do you? You want the GOVERNMENT to keep polygamists from having any religious rights, don't you?

No, I think that polygamists should be left alone and government should not be involved.

Oh really? So now you support legal polygamy but oppose legal same sex marriage.

lol, I'd have made great lawyer, if I wasn't so lazy lolol.

 

[WelfareQueen]

No....it's a sincerely held religious belief. See...this is America. You have the right to religious freedom and free speech.

Only Libturds want to squash religious freedom and free speech. That is the real intolerance and bigotry. All of you should be ashamed.

So if human sacrifice is a 'sincerely held religious belief' the US govt. should be powerless to stop the practice?

Analogies are always false. Try again.

 

[Nosmo King]

Hating faggots is no longer a way to win. Sorry boys..,

You are one of the ones who are buying into left's propaganda, just by saying hating faggots.
Being against a certain lifestyle is not hating and forcing the acceptance by the teaching of that lifestyle in our schools should not be taught, it should be done at home.

Your hatred of faggots cannot be helped. Your kind will die off, that's the best we can hope for. You won't grow up so you might as well grow down...

Why do you think that I hate gay people?
I don't.
I just disapprove of the lifestyle.
It doesn't mean that I can't have them as friends, which I do.
I also don't like the drinking lifestyle, but it does not mean that I don't have friends who get drunk all the time.

A few points to ponder:

Being homosexual is not a 'lifestyle'. It's an immutable characteristic like eye color or race. It's not a choice. It's a sexual orientation

Drinking to excess is not a lifestyle. It's an addiction, a disease, not a choice.

That is where we differ.
It is a choice.
The person is the one who decided to start drinking, then it becomes an addiction.

One person has a drink and can leave it alone. Another takes a drink and cannot stop. Addiction is ingrained and cannot be detected until it manifests itself.

 

[Flopper]

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.

To get the nomination he has to oppose gay marriage and support anything anti-gay. If he wins the nominations he has to backpedal, by clarifying his statements or issuing contradictory statement. That's how Republicans today become president.

 

[NYcarbineer]

No....it's a sincerely held religious belief. See...this is America. You have the right to religious freedom and free speech.

Only Libturds want to squash religious freedom and free speech. That is the real intolerance and bigotry. All of you should be ashamed.

So if human sacrifice is a 'sincerely held religious belief' the US govt. should be powerless to stop the practice?

Analogies are always false. Try again.

It's not an analogy. It's an example of a religious practice.

 

[peach174]

...the Federal Government should not be in the business of any laws on social issues.
It should be up to the States.

Whomever did you learn that nonsense from BTW? And that's what it is.

American History College class.

In Reynolds v. United States, the court case that denied Mormons the religious freedom argument for polygamy,

the Court said this:

." The court considered that if polygamy was allowed, someone might eventually argue that human sacrifice was a necessary part of their religion,

and "to permit this would be to make the professed doctrines of religious belief superior to the law of the land, and in effect to permit every citizen to become a law unto himself."

The Court believed the First Amendment forbade Congress from legislating against opinion, but allowed it to legislate against action."

Do you agree or disagree?

I agree with the court.

 

[NYcarbineer]

lol, if gays get to marry legally, the next thing you know they'll be trying to stop Christian churches from being built near ground zero.

 

[NYcarbineer]

...the Federal Government should not be in the business of any laws on social issues.
It should be up to the States.

Whomever did you learn that nonsense from BTW? And that's what it is.

American History College class.

In Reynolds v. United States, the court case that denied Mormons the religious freedom argument for polygamy,

the Court said this:

." The court considered that if polygamy was allowed, someone might eventually argue that human sacrifice was a necessary part of their religion,

and "to permit this would be to make the professed doctrines of religious belief superior to the law of the land, and in effect to permit every citizen to become a law unto himself."

The Court believed the First Amendment forbade Congress from legislating against opinion, but allowed it to legislate against action."

Do you agree or disagree?

I agree with the court.

Then you agree that religious freedom is not a trump card when it comes up against the constitutional rights of others.

See? You are educable.

 

[tinydancer]

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?

Only, 2014 was not historic. It broke no records. Try again.

Lowest turnout since WWII when the men were all overseas...

Republican turn out was just fine now wasn't it? Your team stayed at home.

 

[tinydancer]

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?

Only, 2014 was not historic. It broke no records. Try again.

Tell that to the historians. How many links would you like me to put up?



McSally win gives GOP historic majority in House - The Washington Post

McSally win gives GOP historic majority in House



As GOP Swept Congress, Black Republicans Took Home Historic Wins

As GOP Swept Congress Black Republicans Took Home Historic Wins Code Switch NPR

The Republican Party made historic gains during this week's midterm elections. Among their victories were three wins by black Republicans, who seem to be building momentum for diversifying the GOP ranks.

 

[The2ndAmendment]

OP should have to provide proof that his career has ended. Has he been forced to resign? Will he not seek re-election in Florida if he loses presidential nomination?

Why is it that conservatives on USMB are held to very rigid OP/title standards and liberals on USMB are not?

The thread should be moved to Badlands or the title changed removing "career ended"

"Homophobic Rant" in the title is an opinion, and thus valid in the title since it reflects the OP' stance.

"Ending Political Career" is a fact, and that fact is false. It should be removed from the title or the entire thread should be moved to Badlands. One or the other. Why is hazlnut in particular allowed so much leniency is his misleading threads and thread titles?

 

[WelfareQueen]

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.

To get the nomination he has to oppose gay marriage and support anything anti-gay. If he wins the nominations he has to backpedal, by clarifying his statements or issuing contradictory statement. That's how Republicans today become president.

And Democrats too.

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

It's over for Rubio.

Yeah, sure it is, because the Republican Party has always been known for their tolerance of homosexuality