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.
Ok.. let's have this argument again, but you're dead wrong. The action isn't being prohibited. Businesses can discriminate against anyone any time they want if they don't say why. It's the expression of a prohibited reason that makes the denial of service illegal.You can think whatever you'd like. PA laws don't regulate thoughts. They regulate actions. And its perfectly permissible for government to regulate action.
That's not an argument. That's like saying someone can commit murder if they can get away with it. Like your example, it's still illegal and still prosecutable if a person's guilt can be proven.Ok.. let's have this argument again, but you're dead wrong. The action isn't being prohibited. Businesses can discriminate against anyone any time they want if they don't say why. It's the expression of a prohibited reason that makes the denial of service illegal.You can think whatever you'd like. PA laws don't regulate thoughts. They regulate actions. And its perfectly permissible for government to regulate action.
To put it another way, discriminating isn't illegal. Discriminating for the wrong reasons is what's illegal.
WTF is wrong with you? The primary purposes of a locker room is to shower or get changed. Everyone, regardless of gender or sexual preference has access to that. The primary purpose of marriage is to make a life long commitment to the person you love. Homosexuals were denied that right.The lesbian has access to a locker room .... until recently, she didn't have access to marry the person she loved.Distract away
If a lesbian couple is similarily situated, as it relates to a male, in marriage, what magic wand gets waved by her to claim she's not as it applies to locker rooms??????
Hummmmmm
But now she can, besides this is about Public Acommodations.
Both couples are married, both should be accommodated equally.
The lesbian couple used the "similar situated" argument successfully to win the right to marry.
Are you now saying that gender really does matter?
You cannot claim similarity when it suits you, then claim you are not when it suits your fancy.
The lesbian is allowed in the locker room with the wife, who the lesbian is sexually attracted to, but the husband (who the lesbian claims she is similar to) is not?
Why? Some kind of MORALITY play?
Hmmmmmm, sounds kinda familiar?
Sorry, you argue seperate but equal again.
Everyone has access to cake also
The baker never denied baking them "a" cake.
The male has access to "a" shower.
How pleasent the world can be.
In the business offering a locker room, everyone has access to it. In the business offering wedding cakes, only straight people have access to it. Using your analogy, it would be illegal to bar homosexuals from using the locker room.
This thread shall live in infamy, of this I am sure...
I think the whole policy will. Especially as the practice is extended to cover more and more protected classes. Which is bound to happen because there's no good reason anyone should be left out. But it's impossible to include everyone, and the strain will take it's toll - until the whole thing collapses.
Aha. So, tolerance and equality leads to collapse. Got it.
The intolerance and inequality inherent in PA laws will cause them to collapse.
WTF is wrong with you? The primary purposes of a locker room is to shower or get changed. Everyone, regardless of gender or sexual preference has access to that. The primary purpose of marriage is to make a life long commitment to the person you love. Homosexuals were denied that right.The lesbian has access to a locker room .... until recently, she didn't have access to marry the person she loved.
But now she can, besides this is about Public Acommodations.
Both couples are married, both should be accommodated equally.
The lesbian couple used the "similar situated" argument successfully to win the right to marry.
Are you now saying that gender really does matter?
You cannot claim similarity when it suits you, then claim you are not when it suits your fancy.
The lesbian is allowed in the locker room with the wife, who the lesbian is sexually attracted to, but the husband (who the lesbian claims she is similar to) is not?
Why? Some kind of MORALITY play?
Hmmmmmm, sounds kinda familiar?
Sorry, you argue seperate but equal again.
Everyone has access to cake also
The baker never denied baking them "a" cake.
The male has access to "a" shower.
How pleasent the world can be.
In the business offering a locker room, everyone has access to it. In the business offering wedding cakes, only straight people have access to it. Using your analogy, it would be illegal to bar homosexuals from using the locker room.
One must be seperate to be equal?
The other not?
I take it civil unions would have been fine with you for gays, right?
You do understand the legal standing that same sex couples were granted, right?
Here, I'll link to it again:Similarly Situated Nolo s Free Dictionary of Law Terms and Legal Definitions
This thread shall live in infamy, of this I am sure...
I think the whole policy will. Especially as the practice is extended to cover more and more protected classes. Which is bound to happen because there's no good reason anyone should be left out. But it's impossible to include everyone, and the strain will take it's toll - until the whole thing collapses.
Aha. So, tolerance and equality leads to collapse. Got it.
The intolerance and inequality inherent in PA laws will cause them to collapse.
This thread shall live in infamy, of this I am sure...
I think the whole policy will. Especially as the practice is extended to cover more and more protected classes. Which is bound to happen because there's no good reason anyone should be left out. But it's impossible to include everyone, and the strain will take it's toll - until the whole thing collapses.
Aha. So, tolerance and equality leads to collapse. Got it.
The intolerance and inequality inherent in PA laws will cause them to collapse.
First of all, I 'm not gay. That's yet another one of your delusions. Secondly, banning gay marriage was not a case of similarly situated because there was no compelling reason to deny homosexuals from their right to marry the person they love. Seriously, WTF is wrong with you?WTF is wrong with you? The primary purposes of a locker room is to shower or get changed. Everyone, regardless of gender or sexual preference has access to that. The primary purpose of marriage is to make a life long commitment to the person you love. Homosexuals were denied that right.The lesbian has access to a locker room .... until recently, she didn't have access to marry the person she loved.
But now she can, besides this is about Public Acommodations.
Both couples are married, both should be accommodated equally.
The lesbian couple used the "similar situated" argument successfully to win the right to marry.
Are you now saying that gender really does matter?
You cannot claim similarity when it suits you, then claim you are not when it suits your fancy.
The lesbian is allowed in the locker room with the wife, who the lesbian is sexually attracted to, but the husband (who the lesbian claims she is similar to) is not?
Why? Some kind of MORALITY play?
Hmmmmmm, sounds kinda familiar?
Sorry, you argue seperate but equal again.
Everyone has access to cake also
The baker never denied baking them "a" cake.
The male has access to "a" shower.
How pleasent the world can be.
In the business offering a locker room, everyone has access to it. In the business offering wedding cakes, only straight people have access to it. Using your analogy, it would be illegal to bar homosexuals from using the locker room.
One must be seperate to be equal?
The other not?
I take it civil unions would have been fine with you for gays, right?
You do understand the legal standing that same sex couples were granted, right?
Here, I'll link to it again:Similarly Situated Nolo s Free Dictionary of Law Terms and Legal Definitions
That's not an argument. That's like saying someone can commit murder if they can get away with it. Like your example, it's still illegal and still prosecutable if a person's guilt can be proven.Ok.. let's have this argument again, but you're dead wrong. The action isn't being prohibited. Businesses can discriminate against anyone any time they want if they don't say why. It's the expression of a prohibited reason that makes the denial of service illegal.You can think whatever you'd like. PA laws don't regulate thoughts. They regulate actions. And its perfectly permissible for government to regulate action.
To put it another way, discriminating isn't illegal. Discriminating for the wrong reasons is what's illegal.
WTF is wrong with you? The primary purposes of a locker room is to shower or get changed. Everyone, regardless of gender or sexual preference has access to that. The primary purpose of marriage is to make a life long commitment to the person you love. Homosexuals were denied that right.But now she can, besides this is about Public Acommodations.
Both couples are married, both should be accommodated equally.
The lesbian couple used the "similar situated" argument successfully to win the right to marry.
Are you now saying that gender really does matter?
You cannot claim similarity when it suits you, then claim you are not when it suits your fancy.
The lesbian is allowed in the locker room with the wife, who the lesbian is sexually attracted to, but the husband (who the lesbian claims she is similar to) is not?
Why? Some kind of MORALITY play?
Hmmmmmm, sounds kinda familiar?
Sorry, you argue seperate but equal again.
Everyone has access to cake also
The baker never denied baking them "a" cake.
The male has access to "a" shower.
How pleasent the world can be.
In the business offering a locker room, everyone has access to it. In the business offering wedding cakes, only straight people have access to it. Using your analogy, it would be illegal to bar homosexuals from using the locker room.
One must be seperate to be equal?
The other not?
I take it civil unions would have been fine with you for gays, right?
You do understand the legal standing that same sex couples were granted, right?
Here, I'll link to it again:Similarly Situated Nolo s Free Dictionary of Law Terms and Legal Definitions
Civil unions would be fine if they were for you too. Civil unions never had the same legal protections as civil marriage.
Again, bathrooms are not separated by maritial status. If you'd like them to be, challenge the law. You have that right.
First of all, I 'm not gay. That's yet another one of your delusions. Secondly, banning gay marriage was not a case of similarly situated because there was no compelling reason to deny homosexuals from their right to marry the person they love. Seriously, WTF is wrong with you?WTF is wrong with you? The primary purposes of a locker room is to shower or get changed. Everyone, regardless of gender or sexual preference has access to that. The primary purpose of marriage is to make a life long commitment to the person you love. Homosexuals were denied that right.But now she can, besides this is about Public Acommodations.
Both couples are married, both should be accommodated equally.
The lesbian couple used the "similar situated" argument successfully to win the right to marry.
Are you now saying that gender really does matter?
You cannot claim similarity when it suits you, then claim you are not when it suits your fancy.
The lesbian is allowed in the locker room with the wife, who the lesbian is sexually attracted to, but the husband (who the lesbian claims she is similar to) is not?
Why? Some kind of MORALITY play?
Hmmmmmm, sounds kinda familiar?
Sorry, you argue seperate but equal again.
Everyone has access to cake also
The baker never denied baking them "a" cake.
The male has access to "a" shower.
How pleasent the world can be.
In the business offering a locker room, everyone has access to it. In the business offering wedding cakes, only straight people have access to it. Using your analogy, it would be illegal to bar homosexuals from using the locker room.
One must be seperate to be equal?
The other not?
I take it civil unions would have been fine with you for gays, right?
You do understand the legal standing that same sex couples were granted, right?
Here, I'll link to it again:Similarly Situated Nolo s Free Dictionary of Law Terms and Legal Definitions
This is why his response was comically weak. Fat people - at the very least because there are more of them - take a lot more abuse than gay people. But the point here isn't that they should be protected from discrimination too. The point is, everyone has their biases, and it's their right. Dictating our thoughts via government is totalitarian oppression. Period.
Oh, bullshit. Big difference between saying "you ought to lose some weight" and "God is going to burn you in hell for all eternity". Both are insensitive, but only one is malicious.
The point, which you ran away from, isn't that fat people have it just as bad as gay people. The point, is that PA laws don't protect everyone equally. They are the opposite of equal rights. They are special rights for some.
The thing is, this all happened because we had a really, really bad problem with slavery and its aftermath. And it's perfectly understandable that, facing a threat to our survival as a nation, we reached for desperate measures to deal with the problem. But desperate measures are hardly ever sustainable. And it's simply wrong to use government to control people's thoughts and opinions.
This is why his response was comically weak. Fat people - at the very least because there are more of them - take a lot more abuse than gay people. But the point here isn't that they should be protected from discrimination too. The point is, everyone has their biases, and it's their right. Dictating our thoughts via government is totalitarian oppression. Period.
Oh, bullshit. Big difference between saying "you ought to lose some weight" and "God is going to burn you in hell for all eternity". Both are insensitive, but only one is malicious.
The point, which you ran away from, isn't that fat people have it just as bad as gay people. The point, is that PA laws don't protect everyone equally. They are the opposite of equal rights. They are special rights for some.
The thing is, this all happened because we had a really, really bad problem with slavery and its aftermath. And it's perfectly understandable that, facing a threat to our survival as a nation, we reached for desperate measures to deal with the problem. But desperate measures are hardly ever sustainable. And it's simply wrong to use government to control people's thoughts and opinions.
Really? Fat people have it "just as bad" do they? Odd...I've not seen a single law being passed trying to prohibit them from marrying. Never heard of them denied service for being fat...and still local PA laws protect them in some places.
WTF is wrong with you? The primary purposes of a locker room is to shower or get changed. Everyone, regardless of gender or sexual preference has access to that. The primary purpose of marriage is to make a life long commitment to the person you love. Homosexuals were denied that right.But now she can, besides this is about Public Acommodations.
Both couples are married, both should be accommodated equally.
They are accommodated equally. Remember, no court, no state, no legal authority has ever found that gendered bathrooms violate PA laws. Rendering your assertion more hapless nonsense that has no reflection in reality.
Predicting nothing, nor having the slightest relevance to any law. With your record of failure remaining perfect.
I mean, the law of averages alone would mandate that eventually you'd get something right. Yet you somehow always find a way to be wrong every single time. With your predictions and legal interpretations of everything from incest to poly marriage to gendered bathrooms demonstrated to be pseudo-legal gibberish by history.
The lesbian couple used the "similar situated" argument successfully to win the right to marry.
Says who? Remembering of course that you citing yourself is meaningless babble.
Are you now saying that gender really does matter?
You cannot claim similarity when it suits you, then claim you are not when it suits your fancy.
The lesbian is allowed in the locker room with the wife, who the lesbian is sexually attracted to, but the husband (who the lesbian claims she is similar to) is not?
Why? Some kind of MORALITY play?
Hmmmmmm, sounds kinda familiar?
Sorry, you argue seperate but equal again.
Everyone has access to cake also
The baker never denied baking them "a" cake.
A bathroom isn't public business. Rendering your argument laughably pseudo-legal gibberish. As PA laws apply only to business. And what service is someone denied by gendered bathrooms? Nothing.
Remember, no court, no state, no legal authority has ever found that gendered bathrooms violate PA laws. Rendering your assertion more hapless nonsense that has no reflection in reality.
Predicting nothing, nor having the slightest relevance to any law. With your record of failure remaining perfect.
I mean, the law of averages alone would mandate that eventually you'd get something right. Yet you somehow always find a way to be wrong every single time. With your predictions and legal interpretations of everything from incest to poly marriage to gendered bathrooms demonstrated to be meaningless babble by history.
Try building a business without restrooms dummy, the government will deny you a permit! That makes it part of access laws.
Oh, another red herring you've been tossing around, the "it hasn't happend yet gambit"
The USSC, just recently made it FEDERALLY recognized that same sex and opposite sex couples were similarily situated, which by the way makes it plain that these couples MUST BE TREATED EQUALLY.
You realize that, right.
How about you attempt making an argument that doesn't imply that treating same sex marriage as similarily situated is appropriate.
So far it appears your against gay marriage.
First of all, I 'm not gay. That's yet another one of your delusions. Secondly, banning gay marriage was not a case of similarly situated because there was no compelling reason to deny homosexuals from their right to marry the person they love. Seriously, WTF is wrong with you?WTF is wrong with you? The primary purposes of a locker room is to shower or get changed. Everyone, regardless of gender or sexual preference has access to that. The primary purpose of marriage is to make a life long commitment to the person you love. Homosexuals were denied that right.
Sorry, you argue seperate but equal again.
Everyone has access to cake also
The baker never denied baking them "a" cake.
The male has access to "a" shower.
How pleasent the world can be.
In the business offering a locker room, everyone has access to it. In the business offering wedding cakes, only straight people have access to it. Using your analogy, it would be illegal to bar homosexuals from using the locker room.
One must be seperate to be equal?
The other not?
I take it civil unions would have been fine with you for gays, right?
You do understand the legal standing that same sex couples were granted, right?
Here, I'll link to it again:Similarly Situated Nolo s Free Dictionary of Law Terms and Legal Definitions
I'll have to take your word that you are not gay. That's how it used to work. No one could really tell when a gay was in the locker room. Now that they can marry, the married gay is on public record, so the world is given notice.
They also were given the status of being similarly situated:
Similarly Situated Nolo s Free Dictionary of Law Terms and Legal Definitions
So Faun, tell me the remarkable difference between a Married Lesbian and a Married Straight Male?
Emotions do not make good law.
You might want to understand both public acommodation laws and the recent USSC ruling granting similarity to same sex couples.
In effect, gay couples now have greater access to public acommodations than straight couples.
So what is YOUR problem?
WTF is wrong with you? The primary purposes of a locker room is to shower or get changed. Everyone, regardless of gender or sexual preference has access to that. The primary purpose of marriage is to make a life long commitment to the person you love. Homosexuals were denied that right.They are accommodated equally. Remember, no court, no state, no legal authority has ever found that gendered bathrooms violate PA laws. Rendering your assertion more hapless nonsense that has no reflection in reality.
Predicting nothing, nor having the slightest relevance to any law. With your record of failure remaining perfect.
I mean, the law of averages alone would mandate that eventually you'd get something right. Yet you somehow always find a way to be wrong every single time. With your predictions and legal interpretations of everything from incest to poly marriage to gendered bathrooms demonstrated to be pseudo-legal gibberish by history.
Says who? Remembering of course that you citing yourself is meaningless babble.
Are you now saying that gender really does matter?
You cannot claim similarity when it suits you, then claim you are not when it suits your fancy.
The lesbian is allowed in the locker room with the wife, who the lesbian is sexually attracted to, but the husband (who the lesbian claims she is similar to) is not?
Why? Some kind of MORALITY play?
Hmmmmmm, sounds kinda familiar?
Sorry, you argue seperate but equal again.
Everyone has access to cake also
The baker never denied baking them "a" cake.
A bathroom isn't public business. Rendering your argument laughably pseudo-legal gibberish. As PA laws apply only to business. And what service is someone denied by gendered bathrooms? Nothing.
Remember, no court, no state, no legal authority has ever found that gendered bathrooms violate PA laws. Rendering your assertion more hapless nonsense that has no reflection in reality.
Predicting nothing, nor having the slightest relevance to any law. With your record of failure remaining perfect.
I mean, the law of averages alone would mandate that eventually you'd get something right. Yet you somehow always find a way to be wrong every single time. With your predictions and legal interpretations of everything from incest to poly marriage to gendered bathrooms demonstrated to be meaningless babble by history.
Try building a business without restrooms dummy, the government will deny you a permit! That makes it part of access laws.
Oh, another red herring you've been tossing around, the "it hasn't happend yet gambit"
The USSC, just recently made it FEDERALLY recognized that same sex and opposite sex couples were similarily situated, which by the way makes it plain that these couples MUST BE TREATED EQUALLY.
You realize that, right.
How about you attempt making an argument that doesn't imply that treating same sex marriage as similarily situated is appropriate.
So far it appears your against gay marriage.
You have crossed the line into being a pathetic jerk. You keep coming back to get your arse kicked though, so it's humorous.
WTF is wrong with you? The primary purposes of a locker room is to shower or get changed. Everyone, regardless of gender or sexual preference has access to that. The primary purpose of marriage is to make a life long commitment to the person you love. Homosexuals were denied that right.
Sorry, you argue seperate but equal again.
Everyone has access to cake also
The baker never denied baking them "a" cake.
A bathroom isn't public business. Rendering your argument laughably pseudo-legal gibberish. As PA laws apply only to business. And what service is someone denied by gendered bathrooms? Nothing.
Remember, no court, no state, no legal authority has ever found that gendered bathrooms violate PA laws. Rendering your assertion more hapless nonsense that has no reflection in reality.
Predicting nothing, nor having the slightest relevance to any law. With your record of failure remaining perfect.
I mean, the law of averages alone would mandate that eventually you'd get something right. Yet you somehow always find a way to be wrong every single time. With your predictions and legal interpretations of everything from incest to poly marriage to gendered bathrooms demonstrated to be meaningless babble by history.
Try building a business without restrooms dummy, the government will deny you a permit! That makes it part of access laws.
Oh, another red herring you've been tossing around, the "it hasn't happend yet gambit"
The USSC, just recently made it FEDERALLY recognized that same sex and opposite sex couples were similarily situated, which by the way makes it plain that these couples MUST BE TREATED EQUALLY.
You realize that, right.
How about you attempt making an argument that doesn't imply that treating same sex marriage as similarily situated is appropriate.
So far it appears your against gay marriage.
You have crossed the line into being a pathetic jerk. You keep coming back to get your arse kicked though, so it's humorous.
I see, you remain without an argument.
Typical
I'll give you a chance at redemption
What is the remarkable difference between a married lesbian and a married male.
Remember, according to most public accomodation laws, you may not discriminate based on gender (sex) and many state you can't discriminate based on sexual orientation (heterosexuality).
So proceed.
First of all, I 'm not gay. That's yet another one of your delusions. Secondly, banning gay marriage was not a case of similarly situated because there was no compelling reason to deny homosexuals from their right to marry the person they love. Seriously, WTF is wrong with you?Sorry, you argue seperate but equal again.
Everyone has access to cake also
The baker never denied baking them "a" cake.
The male has access to "a" shower.
How pleasent the world can be.
In the business offering a locker room, everyone has access to it. In the business offering wedding cakes, only straight people have access to it. Using your analogy, it would be illegal to bar homosexuals from using the locker room.
One must be seperate to be equal?
The other not?
I take it civil unions would have been fine with you for gays, right?
You do understand the legal standing that same sex couples were granted, right?
Here, I'll link to it again:Similarly Situated Nolo s Free Dictionary of Law Terms and Legal Definitions
I'll have to take your word that you are not gay. That's how it used to work. No one could really tell when a gay was in the locker room. Now that they can marry, the married gay is on public record, so the world is given notice.
They also were given the status of being similarly situated:
Similarly Situated Nolo s Free Dictionary of Law Terms and Legal Definitions
So Faun, tell me the remarkable difference between a Married Lesbian and a Married Straight Male?
Emotions do not make good law.
You might want to understand both public acommodation laws and the recent USSC ruling granting similarity to same sex couples.
In effect, gay couples now have greater access to public acommodations than straight couples.
So what is YOUR problem?
I wonder when this little melt down will end. In 5 or 10 years, are you still going to be here wasting everyone's time and energy with your inane arguments?
Sorry, you argue seperate but equal again.
Everyone has access to cake also
The baker never denied baking them "a" cake.
A bathroom isn't public business. Rendering your argument laughably pseudo-legal gibberish. As PA laws apply only to business. And what service is someone denied by gendered bathrooms? Nothing.
Remember, no court, no state, no legal authority has ever found that gendered bathrooms violate PA laws. Rendering your assertion more hapless nonsense that has no reflection in reality.
Predicting nothing, nor having the slightest relevance to any law. With your record of failure remaining perfect.
I mean, the law of averages alone would mandate that eventually you'd get something right. Yet you somehow always find a way to be wrong every single time. With your predictions and legal interpretations of everything from incest to poly marriage to gendered bathrooms demonstrated to be meaningless babble by history.
Try building a business without restrooms dummy, the government will deny you a permit! That makes it part of access laws.
Oh, another red herring you've been tossing around, the "it hasn't happend yet gambit"
The USSC, just recently made it FEDERALLY recognized that same sex and opposite sex couples were similarily situated, which by the way makes it plain that these couples MUST BE TREATED EQUALLY.
You realize that, right.
How about you attempt making an argument that doesn't imply that treating same sex marriage as similarily situated is appropriate.
So far it appears your against gay marriage.
You have crossed the line into being a pathetic jerk. You keep coming back to get your arse kicked though, so it's humorous.
I see, you remain without an argument.
Typical
I'll give you a chance at redemption
What is the remarkable difference between a married lesbian and a married male.
Remember, according to most public accomodation laws, you may not discriminate based on gender (sex) and many state you can't discriminate based on sexual orientation (heterosexuality).
So proceed.
No, you are just too dense to understand. That's another thing that is humorous.
