beagle9
Diamond Member
- Nov 28, 2011
- 44,161
- 16,466
Isn't it the gay's that are attacking if people as individuals don't go along with them as being based upon their religious beliefs? What did they do, reveal their motives if people don't cave or go along with them?Well see... the case is pending on it's way on up as we speak. The florist in Washington is appealing, as you know...
I think you're going to be soundly disappointed yet again.
I wasn't that disappointed with Hobby Lobby![]()
You've been disappointed with pretty much every ruling the court's made regarding gay marriage. And Kennedy doesn't sound terribly supportive of your 'religious belief trumps all discrimination laws' rationale.
Get that fainting couch ready.
Kennedy? LOL! Any ruling Kennedy is involved with regarding this issue is illegitimate, given his 'proclivities' in that area. Same with the booze hound Ginsburg and Butch Kagan.Well see... the case is pending on it's way on up as we speak. The florist in Washington is appealing, as you know...
I think you're going to be soundly disappointed yet again. As granting a woman the right to discriminate against anyone she wishes based on religion essentially dismantled all PA laws and anti-discrimination laws.
Laws which serve to promote mental disorder are illegitimate, as such undermines the objective public interests. So, where PA laws serve to promote such, they should be dismantled.
Yeah, we're not dismantling Public Accommodation laws because you don't like gay people.
Ya see, for law to be valid, it must be objective... and there is no means for a law which promotes chaos to serve the objective interests of the collective. Just as normalizing abnormality cannot serve the interests of those afflicted with such perverse reasoning and by extension, such cannot serve the whole of the community.
Agreement with you isn't a standard of objectivity. As you aren't objective.
So what else have you got?
The harm such brings to the individual is devastating, the harm such brings the community is profound, the potential for such is catastrophic. Tolerating such is something well beyond foolish.
Is this the part where you offer up your fantasies of civil war and the collapse of society unless we start persecuting gay people?
Or the part where you tell us if gays don't 'sit down and shut the fuck up' that they'll be subject to a war that 'will make hate crimes look like Sunday Brunch'.
Alas, your ilk only want to hurt people when it costs you nothing and there are no consequences. And your 'war' involves consequences. Which is why both you and gay folks will remain pristinely safe from one another.