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.
Good guys? You mean the small minded, mean spirited, bigoted, hypocritical, self rightous Christians? LMAO Good guys indeed....quel imbécile.Did anyone happen to mention this?
Sweet Cakes by Melissa raises more than $200,000 to cover fine by Oregon Gaystapo
CainTV.com ^ | July 8, 2015 | Dan Calabrese
Score one for the good guys.......
They take the long veiw, without the limiting factor of one man to one woman, not blood related, incest is just a few steps away.
Not good, not good at all
Poor poppy.
Not me, the poor children created by defective bloodlines. Such horrible disfigurements they will have to endure.
But that's OK to progressives, right?
States don't have rights under the Constitution, they have powers. I wouldn't expect you to know that.SCOTUS has already thrown out similiar lawsuits, and that was BEFORE marriage was declared a right.
The Bigoted Kleins don't have a leg to stand on.
This was not a fine. These were damages. Not only for refusing the service, but also the misery that the Kleins put the Bowman-Crier family through by putting their names and address out on Facebook and the public domain. In turn, they received death threats from "Christians" showing how much of what Jesus had to say really sunk in.
Forgot about Hobby Lobby already, did you? Leftwats sure do have short memories.
Nothing to forget...didn't read the opinions did you?
But on Monday morning, the apocalypse didn’t come. In fact, quite the opposite: In its ruling for Hobby Lobby, the court—in an opinion authored by arch-conservative Justice Samuel Alito—explicitly stated that RFRA could not be used as a “shield” to “cloak … discrimination in hiring” as a “religious practice to escape legal sanction.” RFRA doesn’t permit employers to break a law when there is a compelling government interest backing that regulation, and, according to Alito, the government “has a compelling interest in providing an equal opportunity to participate in the workforce.”
Alito cites racial discrimination in his opinion. But Justice Anthony Kennedy, in a concurrence, cabins the court’s ruling even further, making clear that the majority isn’t rewriting RFRA (or the First Amendment) to protect anti-gay discrimination. Kennedy denies that the opinion is a startling “breadth and sweep,” noting that this case could easily be “distinguish[ed] ... from many others in which it is more difficult” to strike a balance between legal regulations and “an alleged statutory right of free exercise.” While religious liberty may permit employers to exercise their own beliefs to a point, “neither may that same exercise unduly restrict … employees in protecting their own interests.” Translation: This case is about birth control and nothing more—and as a general rule, employees still have a compelling interest in most laws that protect their rights.
The Hobby Lobby ruling is good for gays and doesn t allow discrimination.
Oh, good, you're still alive..
The case had to do with a specific law that pointedly forced a company to violate it's religious beliefs and it falls in line with the simple fact that the Constitution protects religious freedom. The courts will likely also distinguish serving gays in general and serving them in a specific fashion that forces company owners to violate their religious sense of right and wrong. The Constitution protects religious belief, it does NOT protect the "right" to be served by any business...
Which is why the unconstitutional public accommodation laws will soon be in our cross hairs too.
Great! Make sure you start with the Federal law that protects Christians.
Not a "states rights" guy?
It's not a civil right.If it is 'a fact' that most of our society accepts homosexual marriage....why is it more than 30 states voted against it....?
the will of The People has been struck down by lousy lawyers in black robes....and now the fascists are attempting to silence Christians...
States That Voted Against Gay Marriage Now Have It Forced Upon Them
Those votes happened in what year mostly? I'll give you a hint...pick a number between 2000 and 2008...
(FYI...it's 2015)
Polls are not to be trusted.......votes are much more reliable....
The polls all said Romney was losing. That you believed Karl Rove is not the fault of the polls.
You don't get to vote on Civil Rights.
Sent from my SM-N910V using Tapatalk
Yes it is a civil right. We are ALL entitled to the same rights and privileges. If you deny a specific group one of the same rights or privileges that you have (such as the privilege to marry who you want within the confines of the law), then you are violating that group's civil rights. This is America and we are all equal here.
It's not a civil right.Those votes happened in what year mostly? I'll give you a hint...pick a number between 2000 and 2008...
(FYI...it's 2015)
Polls are not to be trusted.......votes are much more reliable....
The polls all said Romney was losing. That you believed Karl Rove is not the fault of the polls.
You don't get to vote on Civil Rights.
Sent from my SM-N910V using Tapatalk
Yes it is a civil right. We are ALL entitled to the same rights and privileges. If you deny a specific group one of the same rights or privileges that you have (such as the privilege to marry who you want within the confines of the law), then you are violating that group's civil rights. This is America and we are all equal here.
Explain then the Complelling state interest in the denial of this "right" to those seeking plural or sibling same sex marriage.
You realize you don't get to have it both ways legally, right?
Good guys? You mean the small minded, mean spirited, bigoted, hypocritical, self rightous Christians? LMAO Good guys indeed....quel imbécile.Did anyone happen to mention this?
Sweet Cakes by Melissa raises more than $200,000 to cover fine by Oregon Gaystapo
CainTV.com ^ | July 8, 2015 | Dan Calabrese
Score one for the good guys.......
They take the long veiw, without the limiting factor of one man to one woman, not blood related, incest is just a few steps away.
Not good, not good at all
Not me, the poor children created by defective bloodlines. Such horrible disfigurements they will have to endure.
But that's OK to progressives, right?
You've gone off the deep end, poppy. Maybe you need to take a vacation from thinking about the gays and their sex.
Good guys? You mean the small minded, mean spirited, bigoted, hypocritical, self rightous Christians? LMAO Good guys indeed....quel imbécile.
They take the long veiw, without the limiting factor of one man to one woman, not blood related, incest is just a few steps away.
Not good, not good at all
Not me, the poor children created by defective bloodlines. Such horrible disfigurements they will have to endure.
But that's OK to progressives, right?
You've gone off the deep end, poppy. Maybe you need to take a vacation from thinking about the gays and their sex.
In one post you claim marriage is a right open to all, then the next one you trash me for agreeing?
You are naive.
It's not a civil right.Polls are not to be trusted.......votes are much more reliable....
The polls all said Romney was losing. That you believed Karl Rove is not the fault of the polls.
You don't get to vote on Civil Rights.
Sent from my SM-N910V using Tapatalk
Yes it is a civil right. We are ALL entitled to the same rights and privileges. If you deny a specific group one of the same rights or privileges that you have (such as the privilege to marry who you want within the confines of the law), then you are violating that group's civil rights. This is America and we are all equal here.
Explain then the Complelling state interest in the denial of this "right" to those seeking plural or sibling same sex marriage.
You realize you don't get to have it both ways legally, right?
You're an obsessive nut, poppy. Start worrying about yourself and your own marriage. Your marriage is what you define it as, not what other people define their marriage as.
They take the long veiw, without the limiting factor of one man to one woman, not blood related, incest is just a few steps away.
Not good, not good at all
Not me, the poor children created by defective bloodlines. Such horrible disfigurements they will have to endure.
But that's OK to progressives, right?
You've gone off the deep end, poppy. Maybe you need to take a vacation from thinking about the gays and their sex.
In one post you claim marriage is a right open to all, then the next one you trash me for agreeing?
You are naive.
You aren't fooling anyone. You aren't that clever. Lol.
Not me, the poor children created by defective bloodlines. Such horrible disfigurements they will have to endure.
But that's OK to progressives, right?
You've gone off the deep end, poppy. Maybe you need to take a vacation from thinking about the gays and their sex.
In one post you claim marriage is a right open to all, then the next one you trash me for agreeing?
You are naive.
You aren't fooling anyone. You aren't that clever. Lol.
^^^^ You've been dispatched and are now simply troll
It's not a civil right.The polls all said Romney was losing. That you believed Karl Rove is not the fault of the polls.
You don't get to vote on Civil Rights.
Sent from my SM-N910V using Tapatalk
Yes it is a civil right. We are ALL entitled to the same rights and privileges. If you deny a specific group one of the same rights or privileges that you have (such as the privilege to marry who you want within the confines of the law), then you are violating that group's civil rights. This is America and we are all equal here.
Explain then the Complelling state interest in the denial of this "right" to those seeking plural or sibling same sex marriage.
You realize you don't get to have it both ways legally, right?
You're an obsessive nut, poppy. Start worrying about yourself and your own marriage. Your marriage is what you define it as, not what other people define their marriage as.
Hypocricy!, you seem to want to define marriage, but if it falls out of YOUR definition, SCREW THEM.
Do you have a reasonable legal defense to deny any of the relationships from attaining the legal status of marriage?
ANSWER: You do not.
Incestuous sexual relationships between close relations cause serious birth defects. That's a scientific fact and a reason for incestuous relationships to be illegal.It's not a civil right.The polls all said Romney was losing. That you believed Karl Rove is not the fault of the polls.
You don't get to vote on Civil Rights.
Sent from my SM-N910V using Tapatalk
Yes it is a civil right. We are ALL entitled to the same rights and privileges. If you deny a specific group one of the same rights or privileges that you have (such as the privilege to marry who you want within the confines of the law), then you are violating that group's civil rights. This is America and we are all equal here.
Explain then the Complelling state interest in the denial of this "right" to those seeking plural or sibling same sex marriage.
You realize you don't get to have it both ways legally, right?
You're an obsessive nut, poppy. Start worrying about yourself and your own marriage. Your marriage is what you define it as, not what other people define their marriage as.
Hypocricy!, you seem to want to define marriage, but if it falls out of YOUR definition, SCREW THEM.
Do you have a reasonable legal defense to deny any of the relationships from attaining the legal status of marriage?
ANSWER: You do not.
It's not a civil right.
Sent from my SM-N910V using Tapatalk
Yes it is a civil right. We are ALL entitled to the same rights and privileges. If you deny a specific group one of the same rights or privileges that you have (such as the privilege to marry who you want within the confines of the law), then you are violating that group's civil rights. This is America and we are all equal here.
Explain then the Complelling state interest in the denial of this "right" to those seeking plural or sibling same sex marriage.
You realize you don't get to have it both ways legally, right?
You're an obsessive nut, poppy. Start worrying about yourself and your own marriage. Your marriage is what you define it as, not what other people define their marriage as.
Hypocricy!, you seem to want to define marriage, but if it falls out of YOUR definition, SCREW THEM.
Do you have a reasonable legal defense to deny any of the relationships from attaining the legal status of marriage?
ANSWER: You do not.
Well, fortunately for me, it is not me who is trying to "define" anyone else's relationship. I support gay marriage. That is all. Gay people pay taxes, work and contribute to the economy and are American citizens entitled to all the same rights and privileges that you enjoy.
'
Yes it is a civil right. We are ALL entitled to the same rights and privileges. If you deny a specific group one of the same rights or privileges that you have (such as the privilege to marry who you want within the confines of the law), then you are violating that group's civil rights. This is America and we are all equal here.
Explain then the Complelling state interest in the denial of this "right" to those seeking plural or sibling same sex marriage.
You realize you don't get to have it both ways legally, right?
You're an obsessive nut, poppy. Start worrying about yourself and your own marriage. Your marriage is what you define it as, not what other people define their marriage as.
Hypocricy!, you seem to want to define marriage, but if it falls out of YOUR definition, SCREW THEM.
Do you have a reasonable legal defense to deny any of the relationships from attaining the legal status of marriage?
ANSWER: You do not.
Well, fortunately for me, it is not me who is trying to "define" anyone else's relationship. I support gay marriage. That is all. Gay people pay taxes, work and contribute to the economy and are American citizens entitled to all the same rights and privileges that you enjoy.
And a legal, one to one, marriage contract between two consenting adults hurts no one.
That is how delusional some of these people are.
'
Explain then the Complelling state interest in the denial of this "right" to those seeking plural or sibling same sex marriage.
You realize you don't get to have it both ways legally, right?
You're an obsessive nut, poppy. Start worrying about yourself and your own marriage. Your marriage is what you define it as, not what other people define their marriage as.
Hypocricy!, you seem to want to define marriage, but if it falls out of YOUR definition, SCREW THEM.
Do you have a reasonable legal defense to deny any of the relationships from attaining the legal status of marriage?
ANSWER: You do not.
Well, fortunately for me, it is not me who is trying to "define" anyone else's relationship. I support gay marriage. That is all. Gay people pay taxes, work and contribute to the economy and are American citizens entitled to all the same rights and privileges that you enjoy.
And a legal, one to one, marriage contract between two consenting adults hurts no one.
Poppy thinks the gay people getting married are destroying his life and the meaning of his marriage. Lol.
Not me, the poor children created by defective bloodlines. Such horrible disfigurements they will have to endure.
But that's OK to progressives, right?
You've gone off the deep end, poppy. Maybe you need to take a vacation from thinking about the gays and their sex.
In one post you claim marriage is a right open to all, then the next one you trash me for agreeing?
You are naive.
You aren't fooling anyone. You aren't that clever. Lol.
^^^^ You've been dispatched and are now simply troll
No, that would be you. You think you are being clever, but you are very transparent. This angle that you've taken up is ridiculous and irrelevant since polygamy and some of the other stuff you've been talking about is NOT legal. When it or if it becomes legal? Then you can whine and cry about that too. Happy?
It's a mental disorder according to you. That's an opinion that has no concrete scientific basis. It's an emotional opinion and nothing more.'
You're an obsessive nut, poppy. Start worrying about yourself and your own marriage. Your marriage is what you define it as, not what other people define their marriage as.
Hypocricy!, you seem to want to define marriage, but if it falls out of YOUR definition, SCREW THEM.
Do you have a reasonable legal defense to deny any of the relationships from attaining the legal status of marriage?
ANSWER: You do not.
Well, fortunately for me, it is not me who is trying to "define" anyone else's relationship. I support gay marriage. That is all. Gay people pay taxes, work and contribute to the economy and are American citizens entitled to all the same rights and privileges that you enjoy.
And a legal, one to one, marriage contract between two consenting adults hurts no one.
Poppy thinks the gay people getting married are destroying his life and the meaning of his marriage. Lol.
and you think that homosexuality is a normal human condition-----------thats how delusional you are.
it is mental abnormality. Gays should not be shunned or discriminated against any more than bi-polar people should be shunned or discriminated against.
Oh the irony! Pop, your opinions are the emotional ones, LOL You think they are logical, but they are not. They are neither scientific nor logical. You are using false analogies comparing incest with gay marriage or comparing group marriages with a one to one gay marriage.You've gone off the deep end, poppy. Maybe you need to take a vacation from thinking about the gays and their sex.
In one post you claim marriage is a right open to all, then the next one you trash me for agreeing?
You are naive.
You aren't fooling anyone. You aren't that clever. Lol.
^^^^ You've been dispatched and are now simply troll
No, that would be you. You think you are being clever, but you are very transparent. This angle that you've taken up is ridiculous and irrelevant since polygamy and some of the other stuff you've been talking about is NOT legal. When it or if it becomes legal? Then you can whine and cry about that too. Happy?
I've asked you dozens of time for your reasonable legal arguments, and you insist on supplying emotional tripe instead.
It's hard to discuss legal issues with someone who refuses to confront them.
Do you have now, any challenge to my theories, or not.
If not, you are trolling.
Thanks
You've gone off the deep end, poppy. Maybe you need to take a vacation from thinking about the gays and their sex.
In one post you claim marriage is a right open to all, then the next one you trash me for agreeing?
You are naive.
You aren't fooling anyone. You aren't that clever. Lol.
^^^^ You've been dispatched and are now simply troll
No, that would be you. You think you are being clever, but you are very transparent. This angle that you've taken up is ridiculous and irrelevant since polygamy and some of the other stuff you've been talking about is NOT legal. When it or if it becomes legal? Then you can whine and cry about that too. Happy?
I've asked you dozens of time for your reasonable legal arguments, and you insist on supplying emotional tripe instead.
It's hard to discuss legal issues with someone who refuses to confront them.
Do you have now, any challenge to my theories, or not.
If not, you are trolling.
Thanks
'
You're an obsessive nut, poppy. Start worrying about yourself and your own marriage. Your marriage is what you define it as, not what other people define their marriage as.
Hypocricy!, you seem to want to define marriage, but if it falls out of YOUR definition, SCREW THEM.
Do you have a reasonable legal defense to deny any of the relationships from attaining the legal status of marriage?
ANSWER: You do not.
Well, fortunately for me, it is not me who is trying to "define" anyone else's relationship. I support gay marriage. That is all. Gay people pay taxes, work and contribute to the economy and are American citizens entitled to all the same rights and privileges that you enjoy.
And a legal, one to one, marriage contract between two consenting adults hurts no one.
Poppy thinks the gay people getting married are destroying his life and the meaning of his marriage. Lol.
and you think that homosexuality is a normal human condition-----------thats how delusional you are.
it is mental abnormality. Gays should not be shunned or discriminated against any more than bi-polar people should be shunned or discriminated against.
It also suggests how fragile is his emotional, mental and spiritual involvement in his marriage vows when something that has nothing whatsoever to do with him is such a huge threat to his commitment to his marriage. That's what homophobia is too, men who are so insecure about their own heterosexuality and their own masculinity that they are severely threatened by the idea of homosexuality.'
Explain then the Complelling state interest in the denial of this "right" to those seeking plural or sibling same sex marriage.
You realize you don't get to have it both ways legally, right?
You're an obsessive nut, poppy. Start worrying about yourself and your own marriage. Your marriage is what you define it as, not what other people define their marriage as.
Hypocricy!, you seem to want to define marriage, but if it falls out of YOUR definition, SCREW THEM.
Do you have a reasonable legal defense to deny any of the relationships from attaining the legal status of marriage?
ANSWER: You do not.
Well, fortunately for me, it is not me who is trying to "define" anyone else's relationship. I support gay marriage. That is all. Gay people pay taxes, work and contribute to the economy and are American citizens entitled to all the same rights and privileges that you enjoy.
And a legal, one to one, marriage contract between two consenting adults hurts no one.
Poppy thinks the gay people getting married are destroying his life and the meaning of his marriage. Lol.
