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.
My link was about his work against communism. Your line was "religion has never done anything good" and I have proven you wrong.
Now go slink back into your bigot hole.
Our government is not allowed to punish people for thoughts. Of course you approve of that because you are a gutless fascist thug.
So you object to PA laws. What are you doing about it? Oh...I was not aware that a wedding cake was part of the wedding ceremony. Does it go down the aisle with the Bride? Or is it there up with whoever is performing the ceremony? Does it go on the Groom's side or the Bride's side? Does the Maid of Honor hold it? Or does the Best Man?In America, the government is not supposed to be able to punish you for not servicing a ceremony that you find offensive.
This is worlds removed from the phony comparison to restaurants or hotels that used to refuse to let minorities eat or lodge there. We're talking about trying to force a religious business owner to service a ceremony that he finds morally offensive.
But, of course, most liberals just don't care about the First Amendment or tolerance or respect for the beliefs of others. If they had their way, any church that teaches the traditional biblical moral code would be shut down for "hate speech."
So...do you believe as the Kleins do? How are YOU being punished for your Thoughts by the government??So...if what you say is true...that people are using the government to punish others for their beliefs...there are not many people who believe as the Kleins do...because not many are being punished. Do you believe as the Kleins do? If so, how are you being punished by the government?So, when are you all going to finally stop whining and bitching about homosexuals? Someday? Never?
Not homosexuals, progressive twats that use government to punish others for their beliefs.
Intellectually-honest and intellectually-dishonest debate tactics
They did not. The husband started lecturing them on Leviticus on their second meeting....then proceeded to post the couple's info on Facebook knowing the "god squad" would go after them.No, assholes like you can think hateful thoughts all you want. You can even say hateful things. What you cannot do, it you provide a public accommodation, is ACT on your hatred. How the fuck is it a thought crime when it is a) not a crime; and b) only punishes actions.If that fine causes all of the bigots to think twice before acting on their bigotry, then it served its purpose.Would you be proud of fining a litterer $138k?
You are ruining someone over not baking a cake.
Again, you seek to punish Thought Crime. How Orwellian.
How is not wanting to do something acting? They pleasantly told them they should go somewhere else for a non-essential service, and they get ruined for it?
You use the action as an end run to punish thought, and to make people who feel the same hide in the shadows.
What was wrong about it?You don't think there was a process?As do we all. You make it sound like it's something out of the ordinary.
Wrong. Some people care more about the process than the results.
it was the wrong process.
Marty didn't like it. It's still a valid and legal process followed by couples before (like Turner v Safely and Zablocki v Redhail) but this time it's people Marty finds objectionable.
that was sick.They did not. The husband started lecturing them on Leviticus on their second meeting....then proceeded to post the couple's info on Facebook knowing the "god squad" would go after them.No, assholes like you can think hateful thoughts all you want. You can even say hateful things. What you cannot do, it you provide a public accommodation, is ACT on your hatred. How the fuck is it a thought crime when it is a) not a crime; and b) only punishes actions.If that fine causes all of the bigots to think twice before acting on their bigotry, then it served its purpose.
Again, you seek to punish Thought Crime. How Orwellian.
How is not wanting to do something acting? They pleasantly told them they should go somewhere else for a non-essential service, and they get ruined for it?
You use the action as an end run to punish thought, and to make people who feel the same hide in the shadows.
In the eyes of the Law it now is.This is an exact quote of that portion of the 14th:They don't need a compelling governmental interest because the law applies to everyone equally. It did not target a particular religious belief. I though you understood this. Apparently not.There is everything unreasonable with the government forcing people to do something they do not want to without a compelling government interest.
Equal protection under the law applies to protection from government.
Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
That assumes SSM is the same as opposite sex marriage, which it is not.
I am saying the a baker for a wedding was never considered a PA under the original federal definition. I have also said the Oregon law is wrong, and violates freedom of association without a compelling government interest.
Now go back to the bathroom and wash your hands 20 times, because someone as anal as this about the letter of the law HAS to be OCD.
1. The law in question has nothing to do with Federal law, the case in question is strictly an issue under Oregon law, unless that law is found to be in violation of the Federal Constitution. The case hasn't gone that far yet. But the SCOTUS (a) upholding previous Public Accommodation laws under the States power to regulate commerce, and (b) their denial of review in the Elane Photography case out of New Mexico to not bode well for the challengers of the law.
2. I'm not OCD, I'm CDO (Compulsive Disorder for Obsessives) which is OCD alphabetized.
>>>>
1. The courts can go suck it.
2) that was actually funny.
1) It would be fun to see you say that to a judge.
2) I agree
There's a lot of people I probably would not like but they follow the law..ergo, no punishment for them.Not wanting to do it is not an action; refusing to do it is an action.No, assholes like you can think hateful thoughts all you want. You can even say hateful things. What you cannot do, it you provide a public accommodation, is ACT on your hatred. How the fuck is it a thought crime when it is a) not a crime; and b) only punishes actions.Again, you seek to punish Thought Crime. How Orwellian.
How is not wanting to do something acting? They pleasantly told them they should go somewhere else for a non-essential service, and they get ruined for it?
You use the action as an end run to punish thought, and to make people who feel the same hide in the shadows.
Semantics. you just want to punish people you don't like. plain and simple.
So what? Are you advocating everything be the same as it was 30 years ago?It is still marriage.This is an exact quote of that portion of the 14th:Equal protection under the law applies to protection from government.
Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
That assumes SSM is the same as opposite sex marriage, which it is not.
30 years ago it wasn't even a concept. It only becomes "marriage if a State legislature agrees to change the terms of its marriage contract to include it.
So...if what you say is true...that people are using the government to punish others for their beliefs...there are not many people who believe as the Kleins do...because not many are being punished. Do you believe as the Kleins do? If so, how are you being punished by the government?So, when are you all going to finally stop whining and bitching about homosexuals? Someday? Never?
Not homosexuals, progressive twats that use government to punish others for their beliefs.
Your disdain for our founding principles, process and the opinions of others is well known.
You are one of those people who will make this world a better place once you leave it.
Our founding principles included slavery and the genocide of Native Americans. Damn straight I have disdain for that.
The thing is, the two reasons you guys give for wanting a gun are absurd.
They are never used in self defense from criminals and the government will always have better guns than you do.
My link was about his work against communism. Your line was "religion has never done anything good" and I have proven you wrong.
Now go slink back into your bigot hole.
Isn't that like saying Hitler was an awesome guy because he built the Autobahn? If you don't mention that Holocaust thing.
Frankly, I don't think his work against Communism was 1) All that important or 2) Really that much of a benefit. The absolute chaos Eastern Europe has fallen into wasn't worth it.
That said, I think his covering up for pedophile priests was a lot worse.
Our government is not allowed to punish people for thoughts. Of course you approve of that because you are a gutless fascist thug.
No one is punishing them for their thoughts. They are being punished for their actions.
What was wrong about it?You don't think there was a process?Wrong. Some people care more about the process than the results.
it was the wrong process.
Marty didn't like it. It's still a valid and legal process followed by couples before (like Turner v Safely and Zablocki v Redhail) but this time it's people Marty finds objectionable.
I don't like Roe V Wade even though I don't think Abortion should be legal. The same applies to Obergefell, as the method is my issue, not the end result.
You can keep saying that I hate certain people, but that is not the case. If its the only way you can comprehend my position, then I feel sorry for you.
What was wrong about it?You don't think there was a process?
it was the wrong process.
Marty didn't like it. It's still a valid and legal process followed by couples before (like Turner v Safely and Zablocki v Redhail) but this time it's people Marty finds objectionable.
I don't like Roe V Wade even though I don't think Abortion should be legal. The same applies to Obergefell, as the method is my issue, not the end result.
You can keep saying that I hate certain people, but that is not the case. If its the only way you can comprehend my position, then I feel sorry for you.
Sorry Marty, but when you say things like "gay marriage isn't like straight marriage", It's pretty easy to suss out your position on gays.
The wife was quite welcoming.They did not. The husband started lecturing them on Leviticus on their second meeting....then proceeded to post the couple's info on Facebook knowing the "god squad" would go after them.No, assholes like you can think hateful thoughts all you want. You can even say hateful things. What you cannot do, it you provide a public accommodation, is ACT on your hatred. How the fuck is it a thought crime when it is a) not a crime; and b) only punishes actions.If that fine causes all of the bigots to think twice before acting on their bigotry, then it served its purpose.
Again, you seek to punish Thought Crime. How Orwellian.
How is not wanting to do something acting? They pleasantly told them they should go somewhere else for a non-essential service, and they get ruined for it?
You use the action as an end run to punish thought, and to make people who feel the same hide in the shadows.
So on their first meeting they were being mean as well?
The role and authority of the Supreme Court is enshrined in our Constitution. If the people of the U.S. believed that branch of government was acting in a manner not in accordance with the Constitution, the people could rectify that. We never have because most believe the Supreme Court functions within the guidelines of the Constitution. The Supreme Court acted within its jurisdiction on Obergefell.What was wrong about it?it was the wrong process.
Marty didn't like it. It's still a valid and legal process followed by couples before (like Turner v Safely and Zablocki v Redhail) but this time it's people Marty finds objectionable.
I don't like Roe V Wade even though I don't think Abortion should be legal. The same applies to Obergefell, as the method is my issue, not the end result.
You can keep saying that I hate certain people, but that is not the case. If its the only way you can comprehend my position, then I feel sorry for you.
Sorry Marty, but when you say things like "gay marriage isn't like straight marriage", It's pretty easy to suss out your position on gays.
Even if I would support and vote for legislation that would make them the same in the eyes of the State? My issue is with Judges making it happen by fiat, not with the democratic process modifying the contract via the will of the people.
You are confusing hatred for simple observation. Just saying they are not the same is not condemning one.
The role and authority of the Supreme Court is enshrined in our Constitution. If the people of the U.S. believed that branch of government was acting in a manner not in accordance with the Constitution, the people could rectify that. We never have because most believe the Supreme Court functions within the guidelines of the Constitution. The Supreme Court acted within its jurisdiction on Obergefell.What was wrong about it?
Marty didn't like it. It's still a valid and legal process followed by couples before (like Turner v Safely and Zablocki v Redhail) but this time it's people Marty finds objectionable.
I don't like Roe V Wade even though I don't think Abortion should be legal. The same applies to Obergefell, as the method is my issue, not the end result.
You can keep saying that I hate certain people, but that is not the case. If its the only way you can comprehend my position, then I feel sorry for you.
Sorry Marty, but when you say things like "gay marriage isn't like straight marriage", It's pretty easy to suss out your position on gays.
Even if I would support and vote for legislation that would make them the same in the eyes of the State? My issue is with Judges making it happen by fiat, not with the democratic process modifying the contract via the will of the people.
You are confusing hatred for simple observation. Just saying they are not the same is not condemning one.
