SCOTUS divided over SSM

[Syriusly]

It seems like wanting to deny gays rights, calling them sinners if they decide to love their partner is hatred..

Having sex is not a right. If it were, then rape as such would not be crime.
Love is not a right it is an emotion. If it were, one could take somebody else's loved one by force based on the reason of loving.
What I am saying is that there is no such thing as "gay right"

Wow! Just wow! You just equated having sex with rape, with no distinction between consentual and non-consentual.

Don't fucking spin it biatch. You know what I am talking about. If it is a RIGHT I do not need you consentual bullshit.

LOL.....why are the homophobes so often potty mouthed 13 year olds?

Homophobes? Why is it homophobe in your book that I do not take feces coated dick into my mouth?
Wipe the froth off your lips, quit mumbling and come up with something making sense.

LOL...why are homophobes like you always fantasizing about anal sex- and having the potty mouth of a 13 year old boy?

 

[g5000]

Having sex is not a right. If it were, then rape as such would not be crime.

Does being this stupid hurt?

 

[Syriusly]

I read through your post, and I've read much of the new and old testament, I used to be a devout christian, although I still respect the teachings of Jesus, they are good, but they don't have anything to do with hating others who happen to be gay.

I agree. When I find somebody who hates others who happen to be gay, I'll pass that along.

It seems like wanting to deny gays rights, calling them sinners if they decide to love their partner is hatred..

Having sex is not a right. If it were, then rape as such would not be crime.
Love is not a right it is an emotion. If it were, one could take somebody else's loved one by force based on the reason of loving.
What I am saying is that there is no such thing as "gay right"

If you cannot tell the difference between sex and rape- then you are a danger to women.

You know, either you are a dumb fuck or a lousy spinner.

If you cannot tell the difference between sex and rape- then you are a danger to women.

At this point I am going with "a danger to women".

Get some help please before you hurt some girl.

 

[AceRothstein]

I'm always amazed you claim to be a lawyer. when you go off and say dumb things like this.

this isn't a CIVIL rights case and you know it. How you of all people can go around and distort and mislead people in this manner is shameful

I am amazed that you claim to be a homo sapiens when you cannot even rhyme two basic sentences together without at least one spelling or punctuation error.

Are you drunk?

No, she's just very, very dumb. Good Gawd is she dumb.

 

[Syriusly]

Its.....creepy. How much time and energy these folks put into these elaborate fantasies about gay sex. That's some detail. They're really fleshing it out, taking into account all the senses.

But....why?

It is because their true aim is to take a giant leap backward and ban gay sex, not just gay marriage.

It isn't the filing of a married tax return that gets to them. It is the gay sex.

Inside every gay marriage opponent is a Westboro Baptist.

More specifically- not just 'gay sex'- many of them really want the government telling all of us what the acceptable ways to have consensual sex are- i.e. the government policing our bedrooms.

 

[danielpalos]

Wait, how the hell will legal same sex marriage or selling cakes lead to god burning people in hell?

People go to hell for not choosing God's love and forgiveness. Every sin has the capacity to separate us from God, but through Jesus Christ, we are offered complete forgiveness and redemption. Hell is a choice we make when we decline forgiveness.

They can make up any reason not to bake the cake, but it will always be presented by the far left as it being because they were gay!

The far Left walks in darkness and speaks the language of lies. Christian business owners don't turn people away because they're gay, but when asked to specifically cater to the gay lifestyle, such as baking a cake for a gay wedding, Christians are pressed with a conflict of interest that is not present when providing normal services to gay people that have nothing to do with gay marriage.

dude, most of the Right cannot distinguish the difference between morality and amorality in public policy decisions.

An ignorant opinion that can't be proved in a rational discussion.

cognitive dissonance on the part of the right is all of the proof any rational person should need.

 

[Pop23]

Having sex is not a right. If it were, then rape as such would not be crime.
Love is not a right it is an emotion. If it were, one could take somebody else's loved one by force based on the reason of loving.
What I am saying is that there is no such thing as "gay right"

Wow! Just wow! You just equated having sex with rape, with no distinction between consentual and non-consentual.

Don't fucking spin it biatch. You know what I am talking about. If it is a RIGHT I do not need you consentual bullshit.

LOL.....why are the homophobes so often potty mouthed 13 year olds?

Homophobes? Why is it homophobe in your book that I do not take feces coated dick into my mouth?
Wipe the froth off your lips, quit mumbling and come up with something making sense.

Jesus Christ..

You rang?

 

[danielpalos]

I win all of my arguments on these forums.

We have a Commerce Clause it is not a Bill of Rights issue.

You aer an ignoramus. You win the "Stupidest Poster on USMB" argument.
The commerce clause does not dictate individual behavior in business. You can argue businesses ought to be focused on making money. And I wont disagree with you. But you cannot argue business have some kind of legal obligation to make money to the detriment of the owners.

Dude, only the Right appeals to Ignorance of this merchant in Commerce issue.

Dude, put down the bong now.

dude, non-sequiturs are considered non-responsive in legal venues; you should try to write to your audience in case you need to "harass a Judge" for your Cause.

Only the Right appeals to Ignorance of this merchant in Commerce issue--we have a Commerce Clause. Any merchant in Commerce doing business on a for-profit basis is subject to that Clause.

Why doesn't the Right merely go, not-for-profit if they want to be lousy Capitalists with poor customer service skills for the Cause of Commerce and Capitalism but not Socialism.

Your post violates principles of Equity as well as Comity and is not in conformance with the Rule of 72.

non sequiturs are usually considered non-responsive in legal venues--you need to be more relevant. We have a Commerce Clause. That merchant in Commerce is operating on a for-profit basis--thus, our Commerce Clause applies.

 

[g5000]

I read through your post, and I've read much of the new and old testament, I used to be a devout christian, although I still respect the teachings of Jesus, they are good, but they don't have anything to do with hating others who happen to be gay.

I agree. When I find somebody who hates others who happen to be gay, I'll pass that along.

It seems like wanting to deny gays rights, calling them sinners if they decide to love their partner is hatred..

Having sex is not a right. If it were, then rape as such would not be crime.
Love is not a right it is an emotion. If it were, one could take somebody else's loved one by force based on the reason of loving.
What I am saying is that there is no such thing as "gay right"

Wow! Just wow! You just equated having sex with rape, with no distinction between consentual and non-consentual.

Don't fucking spin it biatch. You know what I am talking about. If it is a RIGHT I do not need you consentual bullshit.

Yeah! If guns are a right, I do not need "you consentual bullshit" to take yours!

 

[Pop23]

People go to hell for not choosing God's love and forgiveness. Every sin has the capacity to separate us from God, but through Jesus Christ, we are offered complete forgiveness and redemption. Hell is a choice we make when we decline forgiveness.

They can make up any reason not to bake the cake, but it will always be presented by the far left as it being because they were gay!

The far Left walks in darkness and speaks the language of lies. Christian business owners don't turn people away because they're gay, but when asked to specifically cater to the gay lifestyle, such as baking a cake for a gay wedding, Christians are pressed with a conflict of interest that is not present when providing normal services to gay people that have nothing to do with gay marriage.

dude, most of the Right cannot distinguish the difference between morality and amorality in public policy decisions.

An ignorant opinion that can't be proved in a rational discussion.

cognitive dissonance on the part of the right is all of the proof any rational person should need.

^^^^this in a thread on dick munching as a civil right.

You can't make this shit up folks.

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

You aer an ignoramus. You win the "Stupidest Poster on USMB" argument.
The commerce clause does not dictate individual behavior in business. You can argue businesses ought to be focused on making money. And I wont disagree with you. But you cannot argue business have some kind of legal obligation to make money to the detriment of the owners.

Dude, only the Right appeals to Ignorance of this merchant in Commerce issue.

Dude, put down the bong now.

dude, non-sequiturs are considered non-responsive in legal venues; you should try to write to your audience in case you need to "harass a Judge" for your Cause.

Only the Right appeals to Ignorance of this merchant in Commerce issue--we have a Commerce Clause. Any merchant in Commerce doing business on a for-profit basis is subject to that Clause.

Why doesn't the Right merely go, not-for-profit if they want to be lousy Capitalists with poor customer service skills for the Cause of Commerce and Capitalism but not Socialism.

Your post violates principles of Equity as well as Comity and is not in conformance with the Rule of 72.

non sequiturs are usually considered non-responsive in legal venues--you need to be more relevant. We have a Commerce Clause. That merchant in Commerce is operating on a for-profit basis--thus, our Commerce Clause applies.

It's actually the INTERSTATE COMMERCE CLAUSE. I'll let you puzzle out how that defeats your entire argument.

 

[danielpalos]

Dude, only the Right appeals to Ignorance of this merchant in Commerce issue.

Dude, put down the bong now.

dude, non-sequiturs are considered non-responsive in legal venues; you should try to write to your audience in case you need to "harass a Judge" for your Cause.

Only the Right appeals to Ignorance of this merchant in Commerce issue--we have a Commerce Clause. Any merchant in Commerce doing business on a for-profit basis is subject to that Clause.

Why doesn't the Right merely go, not-for-profit if they want to be lousy Capitalists with poor customer service skills for the Cause of Commerce and Capitalism but not Socialism.

Your post violates principles of Equity as well as Comity and is not in conformance with the Rule of 72.

non sequiturs are usually considered non-responsive in legal venues--you need to be more relevant. We have a Commerce Clause. That merchant in Commerce is operating on a for-profit basis--thus, our Commerce Clause applies.

It's actually the INTERSTATE COMMERCE CLAUSE. I'll let you puzzle out how that defeats your entire argument.

The Commerce Clause provides a fundamental basis for public accommodation laws.

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

People go to hell for not choosing God's love and forgiveness. Every sin has the capacity to separate us from God, but through Jesus Christ, we are offered complete forgiveness and redemption. Hell is a choice we make when we decline forgiveness.

They can make up any reason not to bake the cake, but it will always be presented by the far left as it being because they were gay!

The far Left walks in darkness and speaks the language of lies. Christian business owners don't turn people away because they're gay, but when asked to specifically cater to the gay lifestyle, such as baking a cake for a gay wedding, Christians are pressed with a conflict of interest that is not present when providing normal services to gay people that have nothing to do with gay marriage.

dude, most of the Right cannot distinguish the difference between morality and amorality in public policy decisions.

An ignorant opinion that can't be proved in a rational discussion.

cognitive dissonance on the part of the right is all of the proof any rational person should need.

If cognitive dissonance is the standard, you've failed because I've yet to see a cohesive thought pattern from your warped little brain.

 

[Syriusly]

Dude, put down the bong now.

dude, non-sequiturs are considered non-responsive in legal venues; you should try to write to your audience in case you need to "harass a Judge" for your Cause.

Only the Right appeals to Ignorance of this merchant in Commerce issue--we have a Commerce Clause. Any merchant in Commerce doing business on a for-profit basis is subject to that Clause.

Why doesn't the Right merely go, not-for-profit if they want to be lousy Capitalists with poor customer service skills for the Cause of Commerce and Capitalism but not Socialism.

Your post violates principles of Equity as well as Comity and is not in conformance with the Rule of 72.

non sequiturs are usually considered non-responsive in legal venues--you need to be more relevant. We have a Commerce Clause. That merchant in Commerce is operating on a for-profit basis--thus, our Commerce Clause applies.

It's actually the INTERSTATE COMMERCE CLAUSE. I'll let you puzzle out how that defeats your entire argument.

The Commerce Clause provides a fundamental basis for public accommodation laws.

Actually, I do not believe that is true.

The Commerce Clause is the rational for the 1964 Civil Rights Act(and similar Federal laws), but would not apply to all of the state and local PA laws.

Those would be governed by their own State constitutions.

 

[defcon4]

Your right have a possession ends if it belongs to someone else and they do not want to sell/give it to you.

.. you do not have a right to possess anything>>>>try not to pay taxes

Your right to sex ENDS with lack of consent by the other person

It is not a "right" if it is contingent on somebody else's consent.

 

[bodecea]

Your right have a possession ends if it belongs to someone else and they do not want to sell/give it to you.

.. you do not have a right to possess anything>>>>try not to pay taxes

Your right to sex ENDS with lack of consent by the other person

It is not a "right" if it is contingent on somebody else's consent.

Totally incorrect. Any right you have ends at taking away someone else's right.

Again....you are a danger to women.

 

[defcon4]

More specifically- not just 'gay sex'- many of them really want the government telling all of us what the acceptable ways to have consensual sex are- i.e. the government policing our bedrooms.

..again. Very lousy spin. You do not keep your homosexual activity in your bedroom any longer. You are out to destroy the foundation of a healthy society, namely the family

 

[danielpalos]

dude, non-sequiturs are considered non-responsive in legal venues; you should try to write to your audience in case you need to "harass a Judge" for your Cause.

Only the Right appeals to Ignorance of this merchant in Commerce issue--we have a Commerce Clause. Any merchant in Commerce doing business on a for-profit basis is subject to that Clause.

Why doesn't the Right merely go, not-for-profit if they want to be lousy Capitalists with poor customer service skills for the Cause of Commerce and Capitalism but not Socialism.

Your post violates principles of Equity as well as Comity and is not in conformance with the Rule of 72.

non sequiturs are usually considered non-responsive in legal venues--you need to be more relevant. We have a Commerce Clause. That merchant in Commerce is operating on a for-profit basis--thus, our Commerce Clause applies.

It's actually the INTERSTATE COMMERCE CLAUSE. I'll let you puzzle out how that defeats your entire argument.

The Commerce Clause provides a fundamental basis for public accommodation laws.

Actually, I do not believe that is true.

The Commerce Clause is the rational for the 1964 Civil Rights Act(and similar Federal laws), but would not apply to all of the state and local PA laws.

Those would be governed by their own State constitutions.

Here is what I am referring to when I use the term, public accommodation laws:

Within U.S. law, public accommodations are generally defined as entities, both public and private, that are used by the public. Examples include retail stores, rental establishments and service establishments, as well as educational institutions, recreational facilities and service centers. Private clubs and religious institutions were exempt. However, in 1984, the United States Supreme Court declared the previously all-male Junior Chamber International, a chamber of Commerce organization for persons between the ages of eighteen and thirty-six, to be a public accommodation, which compelled the admission of women into the ranks.[1]--Source: Public accommodations - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

Commerce must have some fundamental law in the US with our written Constitution and supreme law of the land.

It cannot be a religious freedom issue if a Merchant in Commerce is operating on a for-profit basis instead of a not-for-the-profit-of-lucre basis.

 

[defcon4]

Your right have a possession ends if it belongs to someone else and they do not want to sell/give it to you.

.. you do not have a right to possess anything>>>>try not to pay taxes

Your right to sex ENDS with lack of consent by the other person

It is not a "right" if it is contingent on somebody else's consent.

Totally incorrect. Any right you have ends at taking away someone else's right.

Again....you are a danger to women.

How did you come to that conclusion? (If you had memory more than a door post you would remember that my posts were always about 100% male-female equality.)
Ah.. you are just reverting to the leftard tactic of "not having a valid argument, let's destroy the messenger"

 

[RandallFlagg]

More specifically- not just 'gay sex'- many of them really want the government telling all of us what the acceptable ways to have consensual sex are- i.e. the government policing our bedrooms.

..again. Very lousy spin. You do not keep your homosexual activity in your bedroom any longer. You are out to destroy the foundation of a healthy society, namely the family

Indeed. These clowns base their ideology on the principle of "the squeaky wheel gets the grease" - pun intended. They scream and shout and wring their little hands to the point that most Americans are beginning to believe that they are 40-45% of the population - when, in fact, they are less than 1%.

Scream loud and long enough and society comes around to your way of thinking. And we fall.