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.
Holy fucking shit! Now I don't think that you're playing stupid any more. I told you that I do not read the bible, I do not own a bible, I have no interest in discussing the bible. The point that I made, and documented was that there are peope who believe that the bible condones discrimination.Ok, show me then what they claim the bible says about discrimination. Perhaps they have references to passages they believe covers the subject. I'd be interested in seeing where they are getting that,.incorrect, belief from.
Just more of your idiotic bullshit ending with a stupid question. How the fuck is any form of discrimination going to achieve equality?I think you are just reading what you want into my posts.
Im sorry you didnt get the "gotcha" answer you were looking for, but it was a bullshit question. I didn't glean what suits me from the bible, I merely stated what the bible actually says. You're asking a question based on something that isn't taught in the Bible.
You seem not to be able to separate that the Bible simply doesn't want you to partake in certain things, but that in no way imparts hate. In your version of this, there is no room for error, that every interaction between a one group to another could be viewed as discrimination.
In your version, every negative interaction between a black person and a white person could be viewed as discrimination.
Prostitution is legal in Nevada, so, if a gay woman goes up to a straight woman for solicitation, and then straight woman says "no, sorry, I'm not gay, I only have sex with men", is she now discriminating? Will be be sued in court because she didn't have gay sex?
Tell you what, since you like to ask these no win questions, I have one of my own:
If blacks discriminating against Whites was the only way to achieve racial equity, would you support it?
Don't be a coward! Answer the question!
Just more stupidity. No it is not discrimination. The straight woman is not rejecting the gay woman because she is gay. She is rejected the gay woman because she does not have sex with women. Plus a street corner is not a place of business that is expected to serve everyone. Personal choice. Cut the crap alreadyProstitution is legal in Nevada, so, if a gay woman goes up to a straight woman for solicitation, and then straight woman says "no, sorry, I'm not gay, I only have sex with men", is she now discriminating? Will be be sued in court because she didn't have gay sex?
abortion and same sex marriage are NOT constitutionally protected rights, that is what you libs always miss. If you think they are, then post the language from the constitution listing them as rights.There is no misunderstanding on our part." All that he said...." It is bullshit and hateful. Decided by voters? More bullshit! Voters do not get to decide a question of the rights of others. Read Anthony Kennedy's words
124 Words From Justice Kennedy's Majority Opinion On Marriage To Remember Forever
Justice Anthony Kennedy's majority opinion in the Supreme Court's same-sex marriage case is excellent. The last paragraph is exquisite. Take a look.www.thenewcivilrightsmovement.com
The fact that they are not enumerated rights does not mean that they are not rights. Constitutional law has long recognised unenmerated rights that flow from the explicit rightsabortion and same sex marriage are NOT constitutionally protected rights, that is what you libs always miss. If you think they are, then post the language from the constitution listing them as rights.
There is no “right to privacy.” Lunacy.The fact that they are not enumerated rights does not mean that they are not rights. Constitutional law has long recognised unenmerated rights that flow from the explicit rights
The bans on abortion were found to be inviolation the right to privacy which is implicit in liberty guarantee of the due process clause of the 14th amendment
Marriage equality is also derived from the due process claue as well as the requirement of equal protection under the law
No...you say when the scotus ruled on obergefell, that it was law, so if scotus overturns it, then, yes, it is a repeal, or possibly a replacement for the previous ruling, which would mean it's now the new law.Kid, you really need to try to understand things better. The Obergefell decision established a case law precident that carries the force of law. To overturn it would be the equivalent of of repealing a law. You are either really dense or you're just playing a sick game where you think you can get over with word games
Ok, since you have documented it, please post those peoples quotes, I want to see what THEY say as their reasoning for discrimination is. I want to see where they use their religion as a way to discriminate against black people.Holy fucking shit! Now I don't think that you're playing stupid any more. I told you that I do not read the bible, I do not own a bible, I have no interest in discussing the bible. The point that I made, and documented was that there are peope who believe that the bible condones discrimination.
"OOOOOHHH...just as i thought...you're a hypocrite and don't want to answer the question!!"Just more of your idiotic bullshit ending with a stupid question. How the fuck is any form of discrimination going to achieve equality?
So what you're saying is, the prostitute can choose not to participate in an activity with a gay person, and that's OK, but if a baker doesn't want to participate in an activity with a gay person, then that's a crime?Just more stupidity. No it is not discrimination. The straight woman is not rejecting the gay woman because she is gay. She is rejected the gay woman because she does not have sex with women. Plus a street corner is not a place of business that is expected to serve everyone. Personal choice. Cut the crap already
The straight woman is not rejecting the gay woman because she is gay
Really? None at all? Because you say so. 2 logical falacies in 6 words. 1. Appeal to ignorance 2. Appeal to authorityThere is no “right to privacy.” Lunacy.
Good fucking grief! Don't you ever get tire of blathering? It is all just words. It is what it is. I would acknowledge that they REPEALED CASE LAW that was considered settle law. I would not RESPECT it or ACCEPT IT because they would have overturned a decision that was based on sound constitutional grounds and which will upend coutless lives just to satisfy their idological blood lust.No...you say when the scotus ruled on obergefell, that it was law, so if scotus overturns it, then, yes, it is a repeal, or possibly a replacement for the previous ruling, which would mean it's now the new law.
Either way, your words are that when the scotus makes a ruling, it has the force of law, and we need to just "get over it", but here you are, now, saying, that you wouldn't respect or acknowledge that their ruling would be law. So, whether scotus makes a rule or overturns a rule, it has the same force of law.
Do you own damned homework! I did enough to make my caseOk, since you have documented it, please post those peoples quotes, I want to see what THEY say as their reasoning for discrimination is. I want to see where they use their religion as a way to discriminate against black people.
Because the United States Constitution contains no such text, and the 10th Amendment dictates what happens when the Constitution is silent on a topic.Really? None at all? Because you say so. 2 logical falacies in 6 words. 1. Appeal to ignorance 2. Appeal to authority
So you are a textualist. and in a in a small minority of constitutional wonks . The Tenth Amendment amendment that reserves to the states is not absolute and does not allow for states to flaut either inumerated or implied rights.Because the United States Constitution contains no such text, and the 10th Amendment dictates what happens when the Constitution is silent on a topic.
That is exactly what I am saying. I can't help it if your too stupid to understand the difference. The prostitute does not iengage in same sex relationships and that is her right, It is her body. The baker is not being asked to do any such thing.So what you're saying is, the prostitute can choose not to participate in an activity with a gay person, and that's OK, but if a baker doesn't want to participate in an activity with a gay person, then that's a crime?
Idiot! She does not do gay sex! it is about her sexual orientation. She is not refusing the lesbian out of an imosity or dislike of here as a person. I still don't know if you are really that stupid , or just playing a sick game here .It doesn't matter if a street corner isnt "a place of business", the fact is, prostitution is legal in Nevada as a way to make money, i.e. commerce, and you're saying that the woman can have sex with anyone, but say no when it comes to gay people, and that is ok? What would be the justification they would use for refusing sex with gay people?
Baking a fucking cake is not participating in the wedding and he did infact reject them because they are gayThe baker didn't "reject" the person because they were gay, in fact, they would do business with them by selling them any of the pre made cakes they wanted. They just said they wouldn't participate in the wedding by making a cake specifically for the wedding.
That "participation" vs discrimination is just pure an d utter bullshit. The baker engaged in discrimination. Period. YOU are the hypocrit and using word games to justify it. And while you claim that your bible does not condone discrimination against gays and blacks, there are many who disagree."OOOOOHHH...just as i thought...you're a hypocrite and don't want to answer the question!!"
The subject wasn't the issue, the fact that it's unanswerable is, which is the game you tried to play with me.
Tell you what, I'll give you a more concise answer to your question. The answer is, no, I wouldn't support them the same, because if someone tried to use religion to justify racial discrimination, when the bible doesn't teach that, then they would be wrong, just the same as the bible doesn't teach discrimination against gay people, it just says not to participate in their activities.
Discrimination requires no justification.That "participation" vs discrimination is just pure an d utter bullshit. The baker engaged in discrimination. Period. YOU are the hypocrit and using word games to justify it. And while you claim that your bible does not condone discrimination against gays and blacks, there are many who disagree.
