Rules For Traditionals: How People In Wedding Trades Can Defend Themselves

[bripat9643]

Hotel owners never cared in the first place. They were forced to treat blacks differently, moron.

That is entirely untrue. See here: Heart of Atlanta Motel Inc. v. United States - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia.

The case that killed your argument, six decades ago.

Yes, there were a few hotel owners who wanted to discriminate, especially in 1964. So what? There were plenty that didn't give a rats ass.

So, the laws were changed, appropriately. And that is happening again, in June.

The laws were changed prior to that case moron, not after.

You are incorrect, as usual, since we are discussing PA laws.

Read the fucking article, Nazi.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

The law is what grants you your rights, my little infant, as in that case, where they were taken away.

That's what Nazis believe. Law either protects your rights or violates them. It doesn't create your rights. If they did, then gays would have no right to get married in most states.

The highest law in the land created your rights. Know what we call it?

No, it actually didn't.

I'm afraid you are wrong as usual my little pissing infant.

No, I'm not. The Founding Fathers agree. Read the Declaration of Independence. It says we are "endowed by our creator with individual rights."

That document counts for nothing, and it matters not a damn what they thought on this issue. Your rights come from the highest law in this land, written by men.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

That is entirely untrue. See here: Heart of Atlanta Motel Inc. v. United States - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia.

The case that killed your argument, six decades ago.

Yes, there were a few hotel owners who wanted to discriminate, especially in 1964. So what? There were plenty that didn't give a rats ass.

So, the laws were changed, appropriately. And that is happening again, in June.

The laws were changed prior to that case moron, not after.

You are incorrect, as usual, since we are discussing PA laws.

Read the fucking article, Nazi.

I know it. I wouldn't have linked it otherwise. He made your argument, and lost.

 

[bripat9643]

Race is not the only protected class in Title II of the CRA. You know that, right?

Yes, but what of it?

You didn't answer the question.

You never answered mine.

Should "the only game in town" be able to deny service?

Yes. If there were enough gay people in town, the "only" game would quickly cease to be the only game. Where there is a void in the market, there is someone who will fill that void.

If you're the only gay person in town, then move the fuck out of there already. If you're not willing to help yourself that much, then you don't deserve for the government to help you by passing a law that will be immediately ignored by the "the only game in town."

I see. I should give up the home that has been I my family for 3 generations because anti gay bigots won't serve me? No thanks. I'll stick with PA laws...that have withstood constitutional challenge.

I moved half way across the country for a job. Why should I experience any sympathy for you?

If you had morals, that would not be a question but, alas, you have none.

ROFL! That Jew hating Nazi claims to have morals?

 

[PaintMyHouse]

This was never up for a vote, either way. What the voters think does not matter, we are not a democracy.

Of course it was up for a vote. How ignorant are you?

The fact that it wasn't doesn't mean that it should have been. This issue was never one for the voters, period.

In other words, you disagree, so screw the law.

That's what I thought.

It doesn't matter what the people say, we are not a democracy.

In other words, screw the law.

When the law is unconstitutional, it doesn't matter if 99.9999% agreed, it's toast. Time to grow up now my little pissing infant.

 

[bripat9643]

Yes, there were a few hotel owners who wanted to discriminate, especially in 1964. So what? There were plenty that didn't give a rats ass.

So, the laws were changed, appropriately. And that is happening again, in June.

The laws were changed prior to that case moron, not after.

You are incorrect, as usual, since we are discussing PA laws.

Read the fucking article, Nazi.

I know it. I wouldn't have linked it otherwise. He made your argument, and lost.

The case was file after the 1964 civil rights act. That's the one that prevents "public accommodations" from discriminating.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

Race is not the only protected class in Title II of the CRA. You know that, right?

Yes, but what of it?

You didn't answer the question.

You never answered mine.

Should "the only game in town" be able to deny service?

Yes. If there were enough gay people in town, the "only" game would quickly cease to be the only game. Where there is a void in the market, there is someone who will fill that void.

If you're the only gay person in town, then move the fuck out of there already. If you're not willing to help yourself that much, then you don't deserve for the government to help you by passing a law that will be immediately ignored by the "the only game in town."

I see. I should give up the home that has been I my family for 3 generations because anti gay bigots won't serve me? No thanks. I'll stick with PA laws...that have withstood constitutional challenge.

I moved half way across the country for a job. Why should I experience any sympathy for you?

If you had morals, that would not be a question but, alas, you have none.

ROFL! That Jew hating Nazi claims to have morals?

Hating Zionists means you have morals, hence your position.

 

[bripat9643]

Of course it was up for a vote. How ignorant are you?

The fact that it wasn't doesn't mean that it should have been. This issue was never one for the voters, period.

In other words, you disagree, so screw the law.

That's what I thought.

It doesn't matter what the people say, we are not a democracy.

In other words, screw the law.

When the law is unconstitutional, it doesn't matter if 9.9999% agreed, it's toast. Time to grow up now my little pissing infant.

Nothing in the Constitution is against such laws.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

So, the laws were changed, appropriately. And that is happening again, in June.

The laws were changed prior to that case moron, not after.

You are incorrect, as usual, since we are discussing PA laws.

Read the fucking article, Nazi.

I know it. I wouldn't have linked it otherwise. He made your argument, and lost.

The case was file after the 1964 civil rights act. That's the one that prevents "public accommodations" from discriminating.

That case is what proved the act was constitutional, dumbass.

 

[bripat9643]

Yes, but what of it?

You never answered mine.

Yes. If there were enough gay people in town, the "only" game would quickly cease to be the only game. Where there is a void in the market, there is someone who will fill that void.

If you're the only gay person in town, then move the fuck out of there already. If you're not willing to help yourself that much, then you don't deserve for the government to help you by passing a law that will be immediately ignored by the "the only game in town."

I see. I should give up the home that has been I my family for 3 generations because anti gay bigots won't serve me? No thanks. I'll stick with PA laws...that have withstood constitutional challenge.

I moved half way across the country for a job. Why should I experience any sympathy for you?

If you had morals, that would not be a question but, alas, you have none.

ROFL! That Jew hating Nazi claims to have morals?

Hating Zionists means you have morals, hence your position.

It means you're an anti-Semite, Nazi.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

The fact that it wasn't doesn't mean that it should have been. This issue was never one for the voters, period.

In other words, you disagree, so screw the law.

That's what I thought.

It doesn't matter what the people say, we are not a democracy.

In other words, screw the law.

When the law is unconstitutional, it doesn't matter if 9.9999% agreed, it's toast. Time to grow up now my little pissing infant.

Nothing in the Constitution is against such laws.

You don't want to debate the Constitution with me, you don't know what it is.

 

[bripat9643]

The laws were changed prior to that case moron, not after.

You are incorrect, as usual, since we are discussing PA laws.

Read the fucking article, Nazi.

I know it. I wouldn't have linked it otherwise. He made your argument, and lost.

The case was file after the 1964 civil rights act. That's the one that prevents "public accommodations" from discriminating.

That case is what proved the act was constitutional, dumbass.

So it came after the 1964 Civil Rights Act, just like I said.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

You are incorrect, as usual, since we are discussing PA laws.

Read the fucking article, Nazi.

I know it. I wouldn't have linked it otherwise. He made your argument, and lost.

The case was file after the 1964 civil rights act. That's the one that prevents "public accommodations" from discriminating.

That case is what proved the act was constitutional, dumbass.

So it came after the 1964 Civil Rights Act, just like I said.

It was the test case, dummy, the one in which the argument you still repeat even today got tossed, six decades ago.

 

[bripat9643]

Read the fucking article, Nazi.

I know it. I wouldn't have linked it otherwise. He made your argument, and lost.

The case was file after the 1964 civil rights act. That's the one that prevents "public accommodations" from discriminating.

That case is what proved the act was constitutional, dumbass.

So it came after the 1964 Civil Rights Act, just like I said.

It was the test case, dummy, the one in which the argument you still repeat even today got tossed, six decades ago.

So it came after the 1964 Civil Rights Act, just like I said.

 

[SmarterThanTheAverageBear]

That's what Nazis believe. Law either protects your rights or violates them. It doesn't create your rights. If they did, then gays would have no right to get married in most states.

The highest law in the land created your rights. Know what we call it?

No, it actually didn't.

I'm afraid you are wrong as usual my little pissing infant.

No, I'm not. The Founding Fathers agree. Read the Declaration of Independence. It says we are "endowed by our creator with individual rights."

That document counts for nothing, and it matters not a damn what they thought on this issue. Your rights come from the highest law in this land, written by men.

No they don't you moron. Your rights come from nature. The only thing the COTUS does is identify which rights the government can't violate.

Damn you are stupid.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

The highest law in the land created your rights. Know what we call it?

No, it actually didn't.

I'm afraid you are wrong as usual my little pissing infant.

No, I'm not. The Founding Fathers agree. Read the Declaration of Independence. It says we are "endowed by our creator with individual rights."

That document counts for nothing, and it matters not a damn what they thought on this issue. Your rights come from the highest law in this land, written by men.

No they don't you moron. Your rights come from nature. The only thing the COTUS does is identify which rights the government can't violate.

Damn you are stupid.

Nature can't help you in court, but the Constitution and a lawyer can since he knows the Constitution that is the ultimate law of the land, which establishes your rights, including the one to be in court.

 

[SmarterThanTheAverageBear]

No, it actually didn't.

I'm afraid you are wrong as usual my little pissing infant.

No, I'm not. The Founding Fathers agree. Read the Declaration of Independence. It says we are "endowed by our creator with individual rights."

That document counts for nothing, and it matters not a damn what they thought on this issue. Your rights come from the highest law in this land, written by men.

No they don't you moron. Your rights come from nature. The only thing the COTUS does is identify which rights the government can't violate.

Damn you are stupid.

Nature can't help you in court, but the Constitution and a lawyer can since he knows the Constitution that is the ultimate law of the land, which establishes your rights.

And yet you are still wrong.

Are you really suggesting that prior to the 13th Amendment black people didn't have a right to not be slaves? That that only became true because the COTUS said so?

Jesus you are stupid..

 

[PaintMyHouse]

I'm afraid you are wrong as usual my little pissing infant.

No, I'm not. The Founding Fathers agree. Read the Declaration of Independence. It says we are "endowed by our creator with individual rights."

That document counts for nothing, and it matters not a damn what they thought on this issue. Your rights come from the highest law in this land, written by men.

No they don't you moron. Your rights come from nature. The only thing the COTUS does is identify which rights the government can't violate.

Damn you are stupid.

Nature can't help you in court, but the Constitution and a lawyer can since he knows the Constitution that is the ultimate law of the land, which establishes your rights.

And yet you are still wrong.

Are you really suggesting that prior to the 13th Amendment black people didn't have a right to not be slaves? That that only became true because the COTUS said so?

Jesus you are stupid..

For how many years after the Constitution was established were blacks slaves? Guess God forgot to mention that when He wrote the Constitution? Oh wait, God didn't write it, men did, and your rights came from them and rights are what you can get enforced. If it can't be enforced, you don't have it.

Slaves, women, children, all property here at the beginning. Where is this nature of yours that you claim makes that untrue?

 

[SmarterThanTheAverageBear]

No, I'm not. The Founding Fathers agree. Read the Declaration of Independence. It says we are "endowed by our creator with individual rights."

That document counts for nothing, and it matters not a damn what they thought on this issue. Your rights come from the highest law in this land, written by men.

No they don't you moron. Your rights come from nature. The only thing the COTUS does is identify which rights the government can't violate.

Damn you are stupid.

Nature can't help you in court, but the Constitution and a lawyer can since he knows the Constitution that is the ultimate law of the land, which establishes your rights.

And yet you are still wrong.

Are you really suggesting that prior to the 13th Amendment black people didn't have a right to not be slaves? That that only became true because the COTUS said so?

Jesus you are stupid..

For how many years after the Constitution was established were blacks slaves? Guess God forgot to mention that when He wrote the Constitution? Oh wait, God didn't write it, men did, and your rights came from them and rights are what you can get enforced. If it can't be enforced, you don't have it.

God you are a moron, the COTUS doesn't give you your rights, it protects the rights you already have which by the way is what you are saying when you say it enforces your rights.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

That document counts for nothing, and it matters not a damn what they thought on this issue. Your rights come from the highest law in this land, written by men.

No they don't you moron. Your rights come from nature. The only thing the COTUS does is identify which rights the government can't violate.

Damn you are stupid.

Nature can't help you in court, but the Constitution and a lawyer can since he knows the Constitution that is the ultimate law of the land, which establishes your rights.

And yet you are still wrong.

Are you really suggesting that prior to the 13th Amendment black people didn't have a right to not be slaves? That that only became true because the COTUS said so?

Jesus you are stupid..

For how many years after the Constitution was established were blacks slaves? Guess God forgot to mention that when He wrote the Constitution? Oh wait, God didn't write it, men did, and your rights came from them and rights are what you can get enforced. If it can't be enforced, you don't have it.

God you are a moron, the COTUS doesn't give you your rights, it protects the rights you already have which by the way is what you are saying when you say it enforces your rights.

The rights I have were created by men. They created the courts as well. So far your nature and god are slackers.