Stand Up For Freedom

[Thunderbird]

Never said they were.
The only thing dubious is your claim to sanity.

The fact that you made a foolish statement doesn't mean other people are insane. lol

Don't get angry just remember people can get married without government approval. That way you won't look stupid next time.

 

[candycorn]

Never said they were.
The only thing dubious is your claim to sanity.

The fact that you made a foolish statement doesn't mean other people are insane. lol

Don't get angry just remember people can get married without government approval. That way you won't look stupid next time.

Looking stupid in your eyes is the least of my worries. For you it's paramount.

 

[EverCurious]

LGBT activists infest quite a few universities.

WORLD Court says college administrator has no right to oppose gay rights Leigh Jones Dec. 21 2012

Correction. The media and religious activists /claim/ that there is a LGBT agenda. As I proved with your original article, the whole truth of the case in question and it's decisions is often not what is reported. I'm not going hunt through another court ruling because frankly the intelligent among us should know that obviously a religion based "news agency" is going to tilt the matter just the same as an LGBT "news agency" would. If anyone wishes they can easily look up the court case in question and read the opinions section - that will usually ferret out the key bits that such biased "news agencies" leave out in order to fit their story mold.


The reality is that court does not really have a dog in the fight as much as both ends of the spectrum would like to say, they merely interpret the law based on the specifics of the case presented to them. All it takes is someone (usually in an authority position, though not always) at any point in time to say anything derogatory about, around, or to the defendant in question and you'll have probable cause for a, or just a claim of, "discrimination" brought up by lawyers in that case. I figure that 70-80% of cases will have some claim of "discrimination" attached to them. If discrimination is actually true or not is generally not decided by the court if there is another matter that gives a less controversial way to dismiss/rule on the case. The court does not particularly want to make decisions on controversial social/moral/political issues because as a country we are supposed to be open to all opinions on those things; thus they do their best to avoid it, and will only ever address if x person was discriminated against in that /particular/ case before them.

While it is true that case law (prior decisions from courts) are used by lawyers to press for a ruling in their clients favor, and is given substantial weight in court if there are not many conflicting judgment's on that issue, it is still usually going to come down to the individual facts of the particular case they are hearing. Lawyers get paid big money to convince the court that x or x and thus their client has been harmed. That's how the woman spilling coffee on herself won her case even though /everyone/ knows that holding a cup of coffee between your knees is risky. I mean, it's not like the cashier dumped it on her, they got the coffee, drove around, parked, and then she spilled it on herself. So then how did she win her case? Because of the other shit her lawyer [brilliantly] brought up in the case; it was the /particulars/ that won the case for her, not the fact that she spilled hot coffee on herself. If you run out and get a cup of coffee and spill it on your lap, you are not likely to win your case.


Similarly in the case I detailed, Ward did not win her appeals case (remember the lower court ruled against her) because of discrimination against religion, but because of the unwritten and unspoken blanket policy (which I have a strong feeling wasn't brought up in the original case, though I wasn't able to track the original down to confirm.) Thus to proclaim that case was an example of LGBT activism, to proclaim it was a "victory" for religious based discrimination against LGBT, to proclaim it did anything /more/ than what it did (which is address the /possibility/ that Ward was religiously discriminated against, is frankly a bit dishonest. However, it is pretty much to be expected from a biased "news source" - on either side. Though I will say the person who wrote up that article was a bit more dishonest by leaving out the key detail of the no-referral policy EMU had.

 

[Thunderbird]

Anyone who cares about freedom, conservative or liberal, should oppose the homosexual activist fanatics.

Check out the article: Articles Moral Bullies and the Laws That Enable Them

 

[Thunderbird]

So many funny outbursts from the activist kooks on this board.

This is one of the best: "Yes, Gay Marriage Hurts Me Personally"

Either submit to homosexual fanatic dogma or you are a Nazi. lol

This had me laughing too: "Yes, Gay Marriage Hurts Me Personally"

So ominous. lol

As I pointed his "fuck police" are on the left: Major failures found in Rolling Stone s A Rape on Campus - Apr. 5 2015

These guys seem a bit unhinged. I guess you have to when defending the indefensible.

 

[Thunderbird]

I think it is important to emphasize the average homosexual is not the enemy. In fact these confused young men suffer more from the homosexual activist agenda than anyone else. Our opponents are the homosexual activists and behind them the media bosses and other assorted plutocrats who hate working folk and religious folk.

 

[Thunderbird]

Oppose homosexual activists and lose your business:

LIBERTARIAN PASTURES Fearing Another Lawsuit Christian Business Owners Stopped Hosting All Weddings. Now Their Business Is Dead.

 

[Thunderbird]

Dangers of giving kids to homosexuals:

PODCAST Robert Oscar Lopez Child of Gay Parents Tells the Truth About Gay Parenting is Labeled EXPORTER of HATE - Young Conservatives

American College of Pediatricians on Same-Sex Marriage Ruling A Tragic Day for America s Children - Breitbart

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2009/03/meet-parents-dark-side-overseas-adoption

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AhzUvl82WBw

 

[Thunderbird]

Stand up for freedom and fight oppression:

Religious Freedom State Legislatures Can Preserve It National Review Online