Saving Children From Homosexual Predators: Emperor Trump to Reverse LGBT Adoption Rights Reforms

[TheProgressivePatriot]

You're tolerant?? Than tell me, do you support:

1.Laws that protect people from work place discrimination based on sexual orientation or gender identity??

2. Laws that protect people from housing discrimination based on sexual orientation or gender identity?

3. Ending discrimination in places of public accommodation based on sexual orientation or gender identity?

4. Putting a stop to the attempted roll back of marriage equality such as what is taking place in at least two states- Arkansas and Texas right now.

5. Do you support hate crimes legislation that includes sexual orientation and gender identity?

6. Do you support putting an end to the bigoted and false rhetoric that claims that they are bad as parents and even dangerous to children, when there is not a shred of credible evidence to support any of that.

Tolerance does not mean just letting them live among as long as they are silent and take whatever some people want to subject them to.

It means allowing them- NO! insuring that- they can live without fear of bodily harm, with fear of public humiliation when turned away from a business or an adoption agency, without fear of being fired from a job or denied housing, and most of all, without fear that their marriage will be invalidated.

How tolerant would you be if you were subjected to any of those things.??

So how tolerant are you , really?

I love it! The ProgressivePatriot's has the same mental capacity as a fictional character specifically designed to be stupid...

Ricky Bobby: "If you're not first, your last"

ProgressivePatriot: "If you're not a totalitarian fascist, you're an intolerant homophobe"

Your posts is so insanely stupid - I'm going to answer each question individually so you can't hide behind volume.

Thank you for confirming the fact that your claim to tolerance is pure bullshit, and that you're a bigot of the first order. So where are your answers? I can't wait !!

 

[P@triot]

You're tolerant?? Than tell me, do you support:

1.Laws that protect people from work place discrimination based on sexual orientation or gender identity??

Absolutely not. That is repulsive fascism (which you are trying to pass off as "tolerance"). You're not the ultimate arbiter of what constitutes "tolerance" no matter how much you wish you were.

I have no business - nor do you - telling others what they must accept and not accept. What they must "tolerate" and what they must not "tolerate". If a private business on private land wants to not enter into business transactions with any group (be it homosexuals, women, blacks, muslims, catholics, jews, or American's with the screen name "P@triot") - then that is their God given right and it is protected by the liberty afforded to them in this country.

The government simps has no authority to tell private citizens on private property what types of business transactions they must enter into and neither does a Gaystapo fascists such as yourself. Liberty is infinitely more important than the feelings of snowflake Gaystapo fascists.

 

[P@triot]

You're tolerant?? Than tell me, do you support:

2. Laws that protect people from housing discrimination based on sexual orientation or gender identity?

Absolutely not. That is repulsive fascism (which you are trying to pass off as "tolerance"). You're not the ultimate arbiter of what constitutes "tolerance" no matter how much you wish you were.

I have no business - nor do you - telling others what they must accept and not accept. What they must "tolerate" and what they must not "tolerate". If a private business on private land wants to not enter into business transactions with any group (be it homosexuals, women, blacks, muslims, catholics, jews, or American's with the screen name "P@triot") - then that is their God given right and it is protected by the liberty afforded to them in this country.

The government simps has no authority to tell private citizens on private property what types of business transactions they must enter into and neither does a Gaystapo fascists such as yourself. Liberty is infinitely more important than the feelings of snowflake Gaystapo fascists.

 

[P@triot]

You're tolerant?? Than tell me, do you support:

3. Ending discrimination in places of public accommodation based on sexual orientation or gender identity?

There no "discrimination in places of public accommodation based on sexual orientation". Literally never has been. Literally never will be. Idiotic straw man.

 

[P@triot]

You're tolerant?? Than tell me, do you support:

4. Putting a stop to the attempted roll back of marriage equality such as what is taking place in at least two states- Arkansas and Texas right now.

Absolutely not. That is repulsive fascism (which you are trying to pass off as "tolerance"). You're not the ultimate arbiter of what constitutes "tolerance" no matter how much you wish you were.

I have no business - nor do you - telling others what they must accept and not accept. What they must "tolerate" and what they must not "tolerate". The 10th Amendment makes it painfully clear (even to the dumbest of progressives) that anything outside of the 18 enumerated powers delegated to the federal government by the states is reserved for the people and the states. And marriage is not one of the 18 enumerated powers. Which means the people of each state get to decide for themselves whether or not they want to accept gay marriage.

The U.S. Constitution and liberty is infinitely more important than the feelings of snowflake Gaystapo fascists.

 

[P@triot]

You're tolerant?? Than tell me, do you support:

5. Do you support hate crimes legislation that includes sexual orientation and gender identity?

Absolutely not. That is one of the dumbest creations of legislation of all time. It is already illegal to kill people. It is already illegal to assault people. It is already illegal to threaten people. Why would we need additional punishment?

If the existing legislation isn't a deterrent enough - then the "hate crime" legislation is even more repulsive. Because it says that it doesn't care about "normal" people and creating a deterrent for homosexuals takes precedence over legislation for heterosexual citizens.

Finally - it operates on the idiotic premise that the prosecution actually knows what a person was thinking when they committed a crime. You have no way of knowing if it was because they hated homosexuals or if it was because of some other reason.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

You're tolerant?? Than tell me, do you support:

4. Putting a stop to the attempted roll back of marriage equality such as what is taking place in at least two states- Arkansas and Texas right now.

Absolutely not. That is repulsive fascism (which you are trying to pass off as "tolerance"). You're not the ultimate arbiter of what constitutes "tolerance" no matter how much you wish you were.

I have no business - nor do you - telling others what they must accept and not accept. What they must "tolerate" and what they must not "tolerate". The 10th Amendment makes it painfully clear (even to the dumbest of progressives) that anything outside of the 18 enumerated powers delegated to the federal government by the states is reserved for the people and the states. And marriage is not one of the 18 enumerated powers. Which means the people of each state get to decide for themselves whether or not they want to accept gay marriage.

The U.S. Constitution and liberty is infinitely more important than the feelings of snowflake Gaystapo fascists.

Thank you! You flunked the first test of your claim to tolerance as well as any claim to an understanding of the constitution. The tenth amendment is not the supreme law of the land. The Constitution is and the tenth must me understood in the context and in relation to the entire constitution including ( and especially the 14th amendment) I previously posted information that clearly documents that the constitution is much more than the enumerated rights but you are apparently to intellectually lazy or deficient to have been able to deal with that.

While marriage is not an enumerated right in the original document, the Supreme Court has ruled on numerous occasions that it is a right- that is called case law incase you don't know and I don't think that you do. Case law carries the force of law and becomes part of the body of constitutional law.

Furthermore, even if marriage had not been established as a right, it has been treated as a right for heterosexual couples while not so much for same sex couples. That is discrimination and a denial of equal protection under the law. I just can't believe how ignorant and idiotic you are

 

[P@triot]

You're tolerant?? Than tell me, do you support:

6. Do you support putting an end to the bigoted and false rhetoric that claims that they are bad as parents and even dangerous to children, when there is not a shred of credible evidence to support any of that.

If evidence existed that actually proved that - I would absolutely support putting an end to false claims such as that. However, all evidence indicates that a broken home or a home with two same sex parents is not as healthy as a traditional home with the biological mother and father.

 

[P@triot]

I previously posted information that clearly documents that the constitution is much more than the enumerated rights but you are apparently to intellectually lazy or deficient to have been able to deal with that.

My emotionally unstable, butt-hurt little progressive snowflake - I read your idiotic article written by a fellow emotionally unstable, butt-hurt, progressive snowflake with an agenda. It was idiotic and 100% wrong. I've forgotten more about the U.S. Constitution than you and your fellow progressives combined will ever know. The U.S. Constitution says exactly what it says. The 10th Amendment says exactly what it says. And for any illiterate who finds it confusing - all one need to is read original writings from the founders, which clarifies it even further.

 

[P@triot]

While marriage is not an enumerated right in the original document, the Supreme Court has ruled on numerous occasions that it is a right- that is called case law incase you don't know and I don't think that you do. Case law carries the force of law and becomes part of the body of constitutional law.

Ah yes....the old "Case Law". The battle cry of the fascist progressive furious that the U.S. Constitution prevents them from enforcing their bat-shit crazy views on their fellow American citizens.

Sorry snowflake - but "Case Law" is a made up left-wing term. Please show me in the U.S. Constitution where it states that Supreme Court rulings instantly become constitutional law? Where exactly is this mysterious "Case Law Clause"? If you can't show it (and....I assure you.....you can't) - then it doesn't exist. And you're just another frustrated progressive snowflake spreading propaganda to push your bat-shit crazy agenda.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

You're tolerant?? Than tell me, do you support:

5. Do you support hate crimes legislation that includes sexual orientation and gender identity?

Absolutely not. That is one of the dumbest creations of legislation of all time. It is already illegal to kill people. It is already illegal to assault people. It is already illegal to threaten people. Why would we need additional punishment?

If the existing legislation isn't a deterrent enough - then the "hate crime" legislation is even more repulsive. Because it says that it doesn't care about "normal" people and creating a deterrent for homosexuals takes precedence over legislation for heterosexual citizens.

Finally - it operates on the idiotic premise that the prosecution actually knows what a person was thinking when they committed a crime. You have no way of knowing if it was because they hated homosexuals or if it was because of some other reason.

Fail # 2 Do you also not support hate crimes against racial, religious and ethnic minorities? When a minority is targeted because of who and what they are, it much worst than just and attack on an individual. It is an attack on and an attempt to intimidate an entire community. How the fuck does it say that anyone does not care about what you refer to as "normal people"?? The "normal people" that you refer to are not targeted for being "normal" !! Such stupidity. I'm surprised that you did not invoke the usual meme about how it extends " special rights" to gays. It does not treat gays or any other minority as special. It threats the perpetrator as special because that are a special kind of reprobate, as you are.

 

[P@triot]

So rather than your both ignorant and arrogant questions about society - why don't you ask me about my positions? Too afraid of the answers buttercup? Yeah....I thought so. However, just in case it's because you're too stupid to ask the right questions instead of being too afraid - I'll give you a few quality examples:

1. How would you feel if your state voted to legalize gay marriage?

2. If you owned your own business - would you enter into business transactions with homosexuals or would you turn them away?

3. How would you feel if your church married homosexuals couples

See how these questions are about ME and MY VIEWS unlike the disingenuous fascist NAZI questions you asked?

 

[P@triot]

You're tolerant?? Than tell me, do you support:

5. Do you support hate crimes legislation that includes sexual orientation and gender identity?

Absolutely not. That is one of the dumbest creations of legislation of all time. It is already illegal to kill people. It is already illegal to assault people. It is already illegal to threaten people. Why would we need additional punishment?

If the existing legislation isn't a deterrent enough - then the "hate crime" legislation is even more repulsive. Because it says that it doesn't care about "normal" people and creating a deterrent for homosexuals takes precedence over legislation for heterosexual citizens.

Finally - it operates on the idiotic premise that the prosecution actually knows what a person was thinking when they committed a crime. You have no way of knowing if it was because they hated homosexuals or if it was because of some other reason.

Fail # 2 Do you also not support hate crimes against racial, religious and ethnic minorities? When a minority is targeted because of who and what they are, it much worst than just and attack on an individual. It is an attack on and an attempt to intimidate an entire community. How the fuck does it say that anyone does not care about what you refer to as "normal people"?? The "normal people" that you refer to are not targeted for being "normal" !! Such stupidity. I'm surprised that you did not invoke the usual meme about how it extends " special rights" to gays. It does not treat gays or any other minority as special. It threats the perpetrator as special because that are a special kind of reprobate, as you are.

Again....you're doing your irrational and incoherent whining. It is already illegal to assault someone. It is already illegal to kill someone. Why would a group deemed "special interest" by you have additional laws of protection? Is a homosexuals life more important than mine?

And...who gets to decide what groups qualify? You? Some other bat-shit crazy progressive? Would you feel the same way about your precious "hate crime laws" if I get to be the one who decides who they apply to?

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

You're tolerant?? Than tell me, do you support:

6. Do you support putting an end to the bigoted and false rhetoric that claims that they are bad as parents and even dangerous to children, when there is not a shred of credible evidence to support any of that.

If evidence existed that actually proved that - I would absolutely support putting an end to false claims such as that. However, all evidence indicates that a broken home or a home with two same sex parents is not as healthy as a traditional home with the biological mother and father.

Another pathetic fail. I have posted extensive documentation showing that kids of same sex couples do as well, and in some cases better than those of heterosexual couples, At the same time, neither you or anyone else has been able to present credible evidence to the contrary. You are in deep denial blinded by your stupidity and bigotry and it that you are beyond redemption.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

I previously posted information that clearly documents that the constitution is much more than the enumerated rights but you are apparently to intellectually lazy or deficient to have been able to deal with that.

My emotionally unstable, butt-hurt little progressive snowflake - I read your idiotic article written by a fellow emotionally unstable, butt-hurt, progressive snowflake with an agenda. It was idiotic and 100% wrong. I've forgotten more about the U.S. Constitution than you and your fellow progressives combined will ever know. The U.S. Constitution says exactly what it says. The 10th Amendment says exactly what it says. And for any illiterate who finds it confusing - all one need to is read original writings from the founders, which clarifies it even further.

What the fuck are you blathering about now. You don't know shit and you are to out of touch with reality to know it. You have a bizarre, anti federalist interpretation of the Constitution that is shared only by a few fringe lunatics of which you are apparently one.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

So rather than your both ignorant and arrogant questions about society - why don't you ask me about my positions? Too afraid of the answers buttercup? Yeah....I thought so. However, just in case it's because you're too stupid to ask the right questions instead of being too afraid - I'll give you a few quality examples:

1. How would you feel if your state voted to legalize gay marriage?

2. If you owned your own business - would you enter into business transactions with homosexuals or would you turn them away?

3. How would you feel if your church married homosexuals couples

See how these questions are about ME and MY VIEWS unlike the disingenuous fascist NAZI questions you asked?

With regards to # 1 and 2 , I did ask you that, just not in the same words. You're just playing childish games with that. So your answers are what?

With regards to #3.....its a flat out stupid question. Gays and gay advocates have no wish to force churches who oppose gay marriage to marry gays. No one wants to be married in a place that is hostile to them. However, many churches to so. By the way, I don't have a church. So how would you feel??

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

You're tolerant?? Than tell me, do you support:

5. Do you support hate crimes legislation that includes sexual orientation and gender identity?

Absolutely not. That is one of the dumbest creations of legislation of all time. It is already illegal to kill people. It is already illegal to assault people. It is already illegal to threaten people. Why would we need additional punishment?

If the existing legislation isn't a deterrent enough - then the "hate crime" legislation is even more repulsive. Because it says that it doesn't care about "normal" people and creating a deterrent for homosexuals takes precedence over legislation for heterosexual citizens.

Finally - it operates on the idiotic premise that the prosecution actually knows what a person was thinking when they committed a crime. You have no way of knowing if it was because they hated homosexuals or if it was because of some other reason.

Fail # 2 Do you also not support hate crimes against racial, religious and ethnic minorities? When a minority is targeted because of who and what they are, it much worst than just and attack on an individual. It is an attack on and an attempt to intimidate an entire community. How the fuck does it say that anyone does not care about what you refer to as "normal people"?? The "normal people" that you refer to are not targeted for being "normal" !! Such stupidity. I'm surprised that you did not invoke the usual meme about how it extends " special rights" to gays. It does not treat gays or any other minority as special. It threats the perpetrator as special because that are a special kind of reprobate, as you are.

Again....you're doing your irrational and incoherent whining. It is already illegal to assault someone. It is already illegal to kill someone. Why would a group deemed "special interest" by you have additional laws of protection? Is a homosexuals life more important than mine?

And...who gets to decide what groups qualify? You? Some other bat-shit crazy progressive? Would you feel the same way about your precious "hate crime laws" if I get to be the one who decides who they apply to?

No ! No body is saying that anyone's life is worth more than another's I'm saying that some lives are more at risk than others but you seem to be to stupid to get that


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[P@triot]

You're tolerant?? Than tell me, do you support:

6. Do you support putting an end to the bigoted and false rhetoric that claims that they are bad as parents and even dangerous to children, when there is not a shred of credible evidence to support any of that.

If evidence existed that actually proved that - I would absolutely support putting an end to false claims such as that. However, all evidence indicates that a broken home or a home with two same sex parents is not as healthy as a traditional home with the biological mother and father.

Another pathetic fail. I have posted extensive documentation showing that kids of same sex couples do as well, and in some cases better than those of heterosexual couples, At the same time, neither you or anyone else has been able to present credible evidence to the contrary. You are in deep denial blinded by your stupidity and bigotry and it that you are beyond redemption.

No....you posted one unreliable link. I've posted more content than you and more reliable content than you that says children do better with their biological parents in the home with them.

 

[P@triot]

I previously posted information that clearly documents that the constitution is much more than the enumerated rights but you are apparently to intellectually lazy or deficient to have been able to deal with that.

My emotionally unstable, butt-hurt little progressive snowflake - I read your idiotic article written by a fellow emotionally unstable, butt-hurt, progressive snowflake with an agenda. It was idiotic and 100% wrong. I've forgotten more about the U.S. Constitution than you and your fellow progressives combined will ever know. The U.S. Constitution says exactly what it says. The 10th Amendment says exactly what it says. And for any illiterate who finds it confusing - all one need to is read original writings from the founders, which clarifies it even further.

What the fuck are you blathering about now. You don't know shit and you are to out of touch with reality to know it. You have a bizarre, anti federalist interpretation of the Constitution that is shared only by a few fringe lunatics of which you are apparently one.

The U.S. Constitution says exactly what it says. And it explicitly restricts the federal government to 18 enumerated powers. The founders were "anti-federalists" and designed our entire structure of government to reflect as much.

If you don't like it - convince the people why your bat-shit crazy fascism is right and get the U.S. Constitution amended. If you can't - tough shit. Accept the fact that the American people have spoken and reject your insane views.

 

[P@triot]

No ! No body is saying that anyone's life is worth more than another's I'm saying that some lives are more at risk than others but you seem to be to stupid to get that

Yeah - and we already have a deterrent in place for those "more at risk". Are you saying that the existing laws sans "hate crime" aren't enough of a deterrent? Murder can carry the death penalty. It's hard to get more of a deterrent than that chief.