Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
It always comes as no surprise when one is backed into a corner of their own doing they resort to insults and other vile crap.I tried to be civil about this but you had to take the low road. Ok. Fine with me.
OK Roger Ramjet......Here is over 150 years of legal precedent that supports the very thing you deny exists. .
Ok, stop right there artard (I certainly did).
I didnt' deny that the freedom exists fuckstain.
I did, and still deny that the EXACT FUCKING PHRASE appears in the text of The Constitution.
Do you REALLY not see the fucking difference? Really?
Nice going. Here's your sign.
Constitution sates freedom OF religion. It does not state freedom FROM religion.
I believe the Fair Housing Act exempts this kind of rental from being subject to certain anti-discrimination:
Civil Rights Division Home Page
See section 803 - 2.
(2) After December 31, 1968, to all dwellings covered by paragraph (1) and to all other dwellings except as exempted by subsection (b) of this section.
(b)Nothing in section 804 of this title (other than subsection (c)) shall apply to--
(1) any single-family house sold or rented by an owner: Provided, That such private individual owner does not own more than three such single-family houses at any one time:
...2)rooms or units in dwellings containing living quarters occupied or intended to be occupied by no more than four families living independently of each other, if the owner actually maintains and occupies one of such living quarters as his residence.
...or not. lol
Constitution sates freedom OF religion. It does not state freedom FROM religion.
What is freedom FROM religion?
My marriage license says differently.two fags is not a marriage.
One of the things that few people, even run of the mill gays don't understand, is that the eventual goal of gay marriage is legal status between multiple persons, pets, inanimate objects, etc. Now, that is not to say that I believe for 1 second that average gay couples seek that goal, rather, I'm simply stating that this is the goal of some of their leadership as they have stated in the past.
Ozmar, it has nothing to do with fragile. It has to do with character: yours is defunct.
You know nothing about me, and let's leave it at that. When you get down to attacking character based on words exchanged in reference to a news item, you have gone too far.
I think it's hilarious that some of the conservatives in this thread want to scream about property rights.
Why?
Because you sat there and didn't oppose your conservative supreme court members when they rammed through the decision to let city governments TAKE private property through eminent domain to give it to other private interests. (Take from land owner to give to Wal-Mart for economic expansion)
Where is the common sense...where is the outrage...when shit like this happened under Bush and Scalia?
I think it's hilarious that some of the conservatives in this thread want to scream about property rights.
Why?
Because you sat there and didn't oppose your conservative supreme court members when they rammed through the decision to let city governments TAKE private property through eminent domain to give it to other private interests. (Take from land owner to give to Wal-Mart for economic expansion)
Where is the common sense...where is the outrage...when shit like this happened under Bush and Scalia?
So where's the link to that? I'd like to respond.
I think it's hilarious that some of the conservatives in this thread want to scream about property rights.
Why?
Because you sat there and didn't oppose your conservative supreme court members when they rammed through the decision to let city governments TAKE private property through eminent domain to give it to other private interests. (Take from land owner to give to Wal-Mart for economic expansion)
Where is the common sense...where is the outrage...when shit like this happened under Bush and Scalia?
So where's the link to that? I'd like to respond.
Look up "Kelo v. New London". It will show you that it was a 5-4 decision, with Sandra Day O'Oconnor, Rehnquist, Scalia, and Thomas dissenting. I have no idea what "conservative SC members" he's imagining here that agreed with that decision.
Ozmar, it has nothing to do with fragile. It has to do with character: yours is defunct.
You know nothing about me, and let's leave it at that. When you get down to attacking character based on words exchanged in reference to a news item, you have gone too far.
Only people with no character maintain that they can run their gums unchecked without it revealing anything about their character.
Told you you were out of your depth here, needledick.
While I agree he acted like an idiot, you have no room to talk...your character is lower than the bottom of a toilet.
Thanks for the ever reliable non sequitor.No, it's hypocrisy. The bible isn't the rule of law...and in another thread people are melting down over someone choosing a roommate.Right wing is more bible beleiving which God says marriage is between man and woman, anything else is an abomination. So it is not hypocrisy, it is the truth. Do not like it, too bad, get right in the head.
The issues are somewhat alike and yet it is always amusing to watch rightwingers come down on opposite sides depending on the question.
I know this is difficult for you, Ravi, but.... to Christians, the Bible is as valid to how we live as the law of the land.
Having said that, I have no problem with gay marriage - as I have always said. On the understanding that the Churches are left to decide for themselves who they will or will not marry within their own faiths.
Personally, I don't see it as a federal government issue. Let each state decide for itself and go for it. Who cares?
You know nothing about me, and let's leave it at that. When you get down to attacking character based on words exchanged in reference to a news item, you have gone too far.
Only people with no character maintain that they can run their gums unchecked without it revealing anything about their character.
Told you you were out of your depth here, needledick.
One of the things that few people, even run of the mill gays don't understand, is that the eventual goal of gay marriage is legal status between multiple persons, pets, inanimate objects, etc.
If all else fails, ad hominem.
You're a moron.
Based on your stance here, your morals and understanding of the world we live in leave much to be desired.
When you get down to attacking character based on words exchanged in reference to a news item, you have gone too far.
"Christians shouldnt live in fear of being punished by the government for being Christians,"
Why must these people lie about what's actually happening? She is being punished for discriminating, not for practicing her faith. Big difference.
That aside, I think she should be able to pick and choose her roommates based on whatever criteria she wants.
My marriage license says differently.two fags is not a marriage.
A piece of paper saying a turd is chocolate does not change the taste of shit.
