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.
Hi SeawytchNobody is discriminating against Christians. It's against the law in all 50 states. Having to follow a state law that protects others in addition to Christians isn't discrimination.
^ Not True ^
Christians are forced to fund abortion measures they have been fighting to separate from
the same way anti-death penalty opponents have been fighting not to fund that either!
If YOU were forced to fund faith-based activities you felt were outside of govt jurisdiction,
you'd push to separate that from public policy also if it was as serious to you as
these beliefs are to them. Like gay marriage, even if it is only 3-5% of the population,
people are fighting for that. So the same with Christians and their prolife beliefs
where they don't want public institutions having anything to do with abortion that is against their beliefs.
In the meantime, they fight just as hard as the progay advocates were fighting over marriage beliefs.
If you don't consider prolife to be a belief protected by law,
how are you supposed to push for progay beliefs to be protected?
How is that fair , Seawytch
For one group to push to protect the rights of the unborn they BELIEVE to deserve 'equal protection of the laws'
and one group to push to protect the rights of gays and marriage they BELIEVE should be recognized by law.
If YOU push for YOUR beliefs to be endorsed and implemented by Govt
then it would only be fair for the people with Prolife beliefs to have that endorsed and implemented by Govt.
Otherwise, you would be discriminating by CREED -- only using Govt to endorse and establish YOUR beliefs
about gay marriage but when it comes to beliefs about Prolife and protecting the rights of unborn,
SUDDENLY that is faith based and doesn't belong in Govt.
Well, so are the rights of gays and marriage "faith based" where that is arguably outside Govt jurisdiction, too!
So that's discrimination and it is in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment and Civil Rights Act.
If you don't see this bias going on, you are equally part of the
problem you point out with anti-gay bias who only see their beliefs as valid for Govt to endorse
but don't want other people's beliefs pushed through Govt. So you are both discriminating against the beliefs of the others; you are equally willing to push beliefs through Govt as long as they are YOUR beliefs and values.
That is violating the First Amendment to abuse Govt to establish beliefs (unless it by consent of all people so there is no faith-based imposition or exclusion going on).
In a word, no.
Christians are not being discriminated against by having to obey laws.
Laws are unconstitutional if the govt is abused to establish faith-based beliefs.
The Christians are arguing the health care and marriage laws are imposing beliefs through govt.
And I agree that this is unconstitutional, outside govt authority.
We don't expect atheists and secular humanists to obey biased laws
that the Christians pass through govt.
For years Christians did expect 'atheists' to obey biased laws.
Matter of fact- Americans are expected to obey the law- every law.
If it is just as wrong to impose religious biased laws on Atheists
.
You are a bigoted hateful jackass.Time to appeal to the courts, the fags suffered no harm, they got their fucking cake elsewhere.
I've had it with trying to be polite and engage intelligently with venomous garbage.
What trash you are!
If what was?I've had it with trying to be polite and engage intelligently with venomous garbage.
What trash you are!
Imagine if it were required by law.
If what was?I've had it with trying to be polite and engage intelligently with venomous garbage.
What trash you are!
Imagine if it were required by law.
I've done my best all my life to be especially respectful in my demeanor to those who find displaying disrespect for those who are not they to be acceptable, great sport.If what was?I've had it with trying to be polite and engage intelligently with venomous garbage.
What trash you are!
Imagine if it were required by law.
Being polite and respectful to gutter trash bigots.
I've done my best all my life to be especially respectful in my demeanor to those who find displaying disrespect for those who are not they to be acceptable, great sport.If what was?I've had it with trying to be polite and engage intelligently with venomous garbage.
What trash you are!
Imagine if it were required by law.
Being polite and respectful to gutter trash bigots.
Too much for too long. Too tired to exert the energy to pretend they are worthwhile members of humanity deserving of respect anymore.
I have both, worked with and for them.I've done my best all my life to be especially respectful in my demeanor to those who find displaying disrespect for those who are not they to be acceptable, great sport.If what was?I've had it with trying to be polite and engage intelligently with venomous garbage.
What trash you are!
Imagine if it were required by law.
Being polite and respectful to gutter trash bigots.
Too much for too long. Too tired to exert the energy to pretend they are worthwhile members of humanity deserving of respect anymore.
But what if there were laws forcing you to tolerate these scumbags? What if you were forced to work with them, or for them?
I have both, worked with and for them.I've done my best all my life to be especially respectful in my demeanor to those who find displaying disrespect for those who are not they to be acceptable, great sport.If what was?Imagine if it were required by law.
Being polite and respectful to gutter trash bigots.
Too much for too long. Too tired to exert the energy to pretend they are worthwhile members of humanity deserving of respect anymore.
But what if there were laws forcing you to tolerate these scumbags? What if you were forced to work with them, or for them?
It is their right to believe as they do and to behave as they do.
That's fine with me. It only makes it easier to identify who to avoid.
Unrealistic example.I have both, worked with and for them.I've done my best all my life to be especially respectful in my demeanor to those who find displaying disrespect for those who are not they to be acceptable, great sport.If what was?
Being polite and respectful to gutter trash bigots.
Too much for too long. Too tired to exert the energy to pretend they are worthwhile members of humanity deserving of respect anymore.
But what if there were laws forcing you to tolerate these scumbags? What if you were forced to work with them, or for them?
It is their right to believe as they do and to behave as they do.
That's fine with me. It only makes it easier to identify who to avoid.
But what if you weren't allowed to avoid them? What if you printed custom T-shirts for a living, and a fundie wanted a batch of T-shirts that said "God hates fags!". What if a law forced you to print the T-shirts, even though you'd rather refuse?
Irrelevant dodge. What if the shirt said "God pities homosexual deviants, forgive them"?Unrealistic example.I have both, worked with and for them.I've done my best all my life to be especially respectful in my demeanor to those who find displaying disrespect for those who are not they to be acceptable, great sport.Being polite and respectful to gutter trash bigots.
Too much for too long. Too tired to exert the energy to pretend they are worthwhile members of humanity deserving of respect anymore.
But what if there were laws forcing you to tolerate these scumbags? What if you were forced to work with them, or for them?
It is their right to believe as they do and to behave as they do.
That's fine with me. It only makes it easier to identify who to avoid.
But what if you weren't allowed to avoid them? What if you printed custom T-shirts for a living, and a fundie wanted a batch of T-shirts that said "God hates fags!". What if a law forced you to print the T-shirts, even though you'd rather refuse?
The law gives me the right to refuse to print hate language.
There is a difference between dealing with people I find repulsive and assisting those people in the recruitment of an army whose purpose is to murder, or imprison me because my existence offends them.Irrelevant dodge. What if the shirt said "God pities homosexual deviants, forgive them"?Unrealistic example.I have both, worked with and for them.I've done my best all my life to be especially respectful in my demeanor to those who find displaying disrespect for those who are not they to be acceptable, great sport.
Too much for too long. Too tired to exert the energy to pretend they are worthwhile members of humanity deserving of respect anymore.
But what if there were laws forcing you to tolerate these scumbags? What if you were forced to work with them, or for them?
It is their right to believe as they do and to behave as they do.
That's fine with me. It only makes it easier to identify who to avoid.
But what if you weren't allowed to avoid them? What if you printed custom T-shirts for a living, and a fundie wanted a batch of T-shirts that said "God hates fags!". What if a law forced you to print the T-shirts, even though you'd rather refuse?
The law gives me the right to refuse to print hate language.
Try to think about this from the perspective of the general principles involved, and not just the particulars of the case in question. Can you understand that government telling you who you must work with, why you can refuse and why you can't, is utterly invasive? Maybe right now you're in agreement with the state's idea of protected classes, but what if things change? What if the conservatives come back in power (a distinct possibility) and use the same kind of tactics to force you to associate with people and causes you find repulsive?
There is a difference between dealing with people I find repulsive and assisting those people in the recruitment of an army whose purpose is to murder, or imprison me because my existence offends them.Irrelevant dodge. What if the shirt said "God pities homosexual deviants, forgive them"?Unrealistic example.I have both, worked with and for them.But what if there were laws forcing you to tolerate these scumbags? What if you were forced to work with them, or for them?
It is their right to believe as they do and to behave as they do.
That's fine with me. It only makes it easier to identify who to avoid.
But what if you weren't allowed to avoid them? What if you printed custom T-shirts for a living, and a fundie wanted a batch of T-shirts that said "God hates fags!". What if a law forced you to print the T-shirts, even though you'd rather refuse?
The law gives me the right to refuse to print hate language.
Try to think about this from the perspective of the general principles involved, and not just the particulars of the case in question. Can you understand that government telling you who you must work with, why you can refuse and why you can't, is utterly invasive? Maybe right now you're in agreement with the state's idea of protected classes, but what if things change? What if the conservatives come back in power (a distinct possibility) and use the same kind of tactics to force you to associate with people and causes you find repulsive?
No law can force me to associate with those who wish me harm. I cannot refuse them service in my business establishment, but the law does not require me to violate the law, or force me to be complicit in the violation of law.
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 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.
They are laws to protect the rights of people who have a history of being discriminated against. No bakery is going to discriminate against fat people. That's probably their customer base.
Fat people do have the option of suing over things like "Your Airline Seat is too skinny for my 400 lb Ass". And guess what, they do. And sometimes they even get accommedations. I recently went to my local theatre and they replaced all the seats with much wider ones. (You also have to buy a specific seat now, because when you go to see a movie like the Avengers: Age of Ultron in 3D, there are only a limited number of seats available.
Uh... OkThere is a difference between dealing with people I find repulsive and assisting those people in the recruitment of an army whose purpose is to murder, or imprison me because my existence offends them.Irrelevant dodge. What if the shirt said "God pities homosexual deviants, forgive them"?Unrealistic example.I have both, worked with and for them.
It is their right to believe as they do and to behave as they do.
That's fine with me. It only makes it easier to identify who to avoid.
But what if you weren't allowed to avoid them? What if you printed custom T-shirts for a living, and a fundie wanted a batch of T-shirts that said "God hates fags!". What if a law forced you to print the T-shirts, even though you'd rather refuse?
The law gives me the right to refuse to print hate language.
Try to think about this from the perspective of the general principles involved, and not just the particulars of the case in question. Can you understand that government telling you who you must work with, why you can refuse and why you can't, is utterly invasive? Maybe right now you're in agreement with the state's idea of protected classes, but what if things change? What if the conservatives come back in power (a distinct possibility) and use the same kind of tactics to force you to associate with people and causes you find repulsive?
No law can force me to associate with those who wish me harm. I cannot refuse them service in my business establishment, but the law does not require me to violate the law, or force me to be complicit in the violation of law.
Uh... ok
Where is the discrimination? Both have access to locker rooms?I have no problem. I've been saying for years that gays should be allowed to marry; otherwise their equal protection was being violated. The U.S.S.C. decision proved I was 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?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?
As far as differences between a married lesbian and straight male ... their gender.
And............
It would be discrimination on that basis, not to mention they are considered as similarily situated.
Similarly Situated Nolo s Free Dictionary of Law Terms and Legal Definitions
So Sayeth the USSC.
And............
It would be discrimination on that basis, not to mention they are considered as similarily situated.
Similarly Situated Nolo s Free Dictionary of Law Terms and Legal Definitions
So Sayeth the USSC.
Pop's meltdown over legal same gender marriage continues.
And Syriously's nervous breakdown over the ramifications of his genderless society actually looks like continues.
Oh, all these arguments were first yours.....
Compelling state interest
Similarily Situated
And you are really this unprepared?
Now that's funny!
And Pop's meltdown continues.
But I applaud his efforts to gain access to the women's showers.
You still pissed? Cuz gays have been using bathrooms like singles bars? Is your party over now?
They have? I had no idea. I've been going into public restrooms and showering in public showers when necessary for over 40 years and never once have I heard a pickup line or seen a disco ball. Where ARE you peeing? Are you sure you've been using public restrooms?
Pop's meltdown over legal same gender marriage continues.
And Syriously's nervous breakdown over the ramifications of his genderless society actually looks like continues.
Oh, all these arguments were first yours.....
Compelling state interest
Similarily Situated
And you are really this unprepared?
Now that's funny!
And Pop's meltdown continues.
But I applaud his efforts to gain access to the women's showers.
You still pissed? Cuz gays have been using bathrooms like singles bars? Is your party over now?
They have? I had no idea. I've been going into public restrooms and showering in public showers when necessary for over 40 years and never once have I heard a pickup line or seen a disco ball. Where ARE you peeing? Are you sure you've been using public restrooms?
It does make you wonder about what bathrooms Pop hangs out in.
And............
It would be discrimination on that basis, not to mention they are considered as similarily situated.
Similarly Situated Nolo s Free Dictionary of Law Terms and Legal Definitions
So Sayeth the USSC.
Pop's meltdown over legal same gender marriage continues.
And Syriously's nervous breakdown over the ramifications of his genderless society actually looks like continues.
Oh, all these arguments were first yours.....
Compelling state interest
Similarily Situated
And you are really this unprepared?
Now that's funny!
And Pop's meltdown continues.
But I applaud his efforts to gain access to the women's showers.
You still pissed? Cuz gays have been using bathrooms like singles bars? Is your party over now?
They have? I had no idea. I've been going into public restrooms and showering in public showers when necessary for over 40 years and never once have I heard a pickup line or seen a disco ball. Where ARE you peeing? Are you sure you've been using public restrooms?
