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.
Unlock unbeatable offers today. Shop here: https://amzn.to/4cEkqYs 🎁
Gays are trying to redefine sexual boundaries for us heterosexuals, how thoughtful of them. Well that's like the deaf are trying to redefine music for us insensitive people that can hear. Thanks, but...no thanks. I get the picture.
When have gays passed laws to make heterosexual marriage illegal?
When have gays passed laws preventing consensual intimate relations with people of the opposite sex illegal?
Seems like the "anti" people are the ones that have passed those types of laws in the past.
>>>>
gays have certainly fought for laws which unconstitutionally prevent one from refusing to do business with them.
Actually a more correct statement would have been "Various groups have certainly fought for laws which unconstitutionally prevent one from refusing to do business with them." See public accommodation laws aren't inclusive of gays only. They include (depending on jurisdiction): race, religion, ethnicity, national origin, sex, military status, parental status, and marital status as well as sexual orientation.
So buy that logic there are many groups that fought for unconstitutional laws.
>>>>
Gays are trying to redefine sexual boundaries for us heterosexuals, how thoughtful of them. Well that's like the deaf are trying to redefine music for us insensitive people that can hear. Thanks, but...no thanks. I get the picture.
When have gays passed laws to make heterosexual marriage illegal?
When have gays passed laws preventing consensual intimate relations with people of the opposite sex illegal?
Seems like the "anti" people are the ones that have passed those types of laws in the past.
>>>>
gays have certainly fought for laws which unconstitutionally prevent one from refusing to do business with them.
Actually a more correct statement would have been "Various groups have certainly fought for laws which unconstitutionally prevent one from refusing to do business with them." See public accommodation laws aren't inclusive of gays only. They include (depending on jurisdiction): race, religion, ethnicity, national origin, sex, military status, parental status, and marital status as well as sexual orientation.
So by that logic there are many groups that fought for unconstitutional laws.
>>>>
Gays are trying to redefine sexual boundaries for us heterosexuals, how thoughtful of them. Well that's like the deaf are trying to redefine music for us insensitive people that can hear. Thanks, but...no thanks. I get the picture.
When have gays passed laws to make heterosexual marriage illegal?
When have gays passed laws preventing consensual intimate relations with people of the opposite sex illegal?
Seems like the "anti" people are the ones that have passed those types of laws in the past.
>>>>
gays have certainly fought for laws which unconstitutionally prevent one from refusing to do business with them.
Actually a more correct statement would have been "Various groups have certainly fought for laws which unconstitutionally prevent one from refusing to do business with them." See public accommodation laws aren't inclusive of gays only. They include (depending on jurisdiction): race, religion, ethnicity, national origin, sex, military status, parental status, and marital status as well as sexual orientation.
So buy that logic there are many groups that fought for unconstitutional laws.
>>>>
Aren't just for gays? That's the understatement of the thread I'd say. PA laws have existed at the federal level in all 50 states since the 60s...but let's get outraged because the same laws that protect Christians in all 50 also protect gays in A LOT fewer.
I wonder how Fox News and the anti-gay bigots on this board would react if they heard about a business that refuses to serve Christians.
Gays are trying to redefine sexual boundaries for us heterosexuals, how thoughtful of them. Well that's like the deaf are trying to redefine music for us insensitive people that can hear. Thanks, but...no thanks. I get the picture.
When have gays passed laws to make heterosexual marriage illegal?
When have gays passed laws preventing consensual intimate relations with people of the opposite sex illegal?
Seems like the "anti" people are the ones that have passed those types of laws in the past.
>>>>
gays have certainly fought for laws which unconstitutionally prevent one from refusing to do business with them.
Actually a more correct statement would have been "Various groups have certainly fought for laws which unconstitutionally prevent one from refusing to do business with them." See public accommodation laws aren't inclusive of gays only. They include (depending on jurisdiction): race, religion, ethnicity, national origin, sex, military status, parental status, and marital status as well as sexual orientation.
So buy that logic there are many groups that fought for unconstitutional laws.
>>>>
Aren't just for gays? That's the understatement of the thread I'd say. PA laws have existed at the federal level in all 50 states since the 60s...but let's get outraged because the same laws that protect Christians in all 50 also protect gays in A LOT fewer.
If you weren't such a lying POS you would realize and admit that I have made it clear. PA laws shouldn't exist, has NOTHING to do with GAYS using such laws.
Gays are trying to redefine sexual boundaries for us heterosexuals, how thoughtful of them. Well that's like the deaf are trying to redefine music for us insensitive people that can hear. Thanks, but...no thanks. I get the picture.
When have gays passed laws to make heterosexual marriage illegal?
When have gays passed laws preventing consensual intimate relations with people of the opposite sex illegal?
Seems like the "anti" people are the ones that have passed those types of laws in the past.
>>>>
gays have certainly fought for laws which unconstitutionally prevent one from refusing to do business with them.
When have gays passed laws to make heterosexual marriage illegal?
When have gays passed laws preventing consensual intimate relations with people of the opposite sex illegal?
Seems like the "anti" people are the ones that have passed those types of laws in the past.
>>>>
gays have certainly fought for laws which unconstitutionally prevent one from refusing to do business with them.
Actually a more correct statement would have been "Various groups have certainly fought for laws which unconstitutionally prevent one from refusing to do business with them." See public accommodation laws aren't inclusive of gays only. They include (depending on jurisdiction): race, religion, ethnicity, national origin, sex, military status, parental status, and marital status as well as sexual orientation.
So buy that logic there are many groups that fought for unconstitutional laws.
>>>>
Aren't just for gays? That's the understatement of the thread I'd say. PA laws have existed at the federal level in all 50 states since the 60s...but let's get outraged because the same laws that protect Christians in all 50 also protect gays in A LOT fewer.
If you weren't such a lying POS you would realize and admit that I have made it clear. PA laws shouldn't exist, has NOTHING to do with GAYS using such laws.
I never denied you said so. I already told you to call your congressman and get them repealed at the Federal level. You don't object to state laws now do you? "States rights" and all that....
I wonder how Fox News and the anti-gay bigots on this board would react if they heard about a business that refuses to serve Christians.
There's already been a thread on it. We acknowledged that gay bakers should be able to refuse service to Christians
Some of us aren't lying hypocrites.
Gays are trying to redefine sexual boundaries for us heterosexuals, how thoughtful of them. Well that's like the deaf are trying to redefine music for us insensitive people that can hear. Thanks, but...no thanks. I get the picture.
When have gays passed laws to make heterosexual marriage illegal?
When have gays passed laws preventing consensual intimate relations with people of the opposite sex illegal?
Seems like the "anti" people are the ones that have passed those types of laws in the past.
>>>>
gays have certainly fought for laws which unconstitutionally prevent one from refusing to do business with them.
So you are saying that gays are just like Christians, Jews, African Americans, Latino's, women, and the physically handicapped?
I wonder how Fox News and the anti-gay bigots on this board would react if they heard about a business that refuses to serve Christians.
There's already been a thread on it. We acknowledged that gay bakers should be able to refuse service to Christians
Some of us aren't lying hypocrites.
Oh but Fox News would go ballistic- as would most of the "Moral Majority", as would most of the Christians on these boards
Gays are trying to redefine sexual boundaries for us heterosexuals, how thoughtful of them. Well that's like the deaf are trying to redefine music for us insensitive people that can hear. Thanks, but...no thanks. I get the picture.
When have gays passed laws to make heterosexual marriage illegal?
When have gays passed laws preventing consensual intimate relations with people of the opposite sex illegal?
Seems like the "anti" people are the ones that have passed those types of laws in the past.
>>>>
gays have certainly fought for laws which unconstitutionally prevent one from refusing to do business with them.
So you are saying that gays are just like Christians, Jews, African Americans, Latino's, women, and the physically handicapped?
Are YOU saying that I have ever said differently? Do me the courtesy of not lumping me in with the idiots who call them non humans and such.
Gays are trying to redefine sexual boundaries for us heterosexuals, how thoughtful of them. Well that's like the deaf are trying to redefine music for us insensitive people that can hear. Thanks, but...no thanks. I get the picture.
When have gays passed laws to make heterosexual marriage illegal?
When have gays passed laws preventing consensual intimate relations with people of the opposite sex illegal?
Seems like the "anti" people are the ones that have passed those types of laws in the past.
>>>>
gays have certainly fought for laws which unconstitutionally prevent one from refusing to do business with them.
So you are saying that gays are just like Christians, Jews, African Americans, Latino's, women, and the physically handicapped?
gays have certainly fought for laws which unconstitutionally prevent one from refusing to do business with them.
Actually a more correct statement would have been "Various groups have certainly fought for laws which unconstitutionally prevent one from refusing to do business with them." See public accommodation laws aren't inclusive of gays only. They include (depending on jurisdiction): race, religion, ethnicity, national origin, sex, military status, parental status, and marital status as well as sexual orientation.
So buy that logic there are many groups that fought for unconstitutional laws.
>>>>
Aren't just for gays? That's the understatement of the thread I'd say. PA laws have existed at the federal level in all 50 states since the 60s...but let's get outraged because the same laws that protect Christians in all 50 also protect gays in A LOT fewer.
If you weren't such a lying POS you would realize and admit that I have made it clear. PA laws shouldn't exist, has NOTHING to do with GAYS using such laws.
I never denied you said so. I already told you to call your congressman and get them repealed at the Federal level. You don't object to state laws now do you? "States rights" and all that....
You just are dumb
I object to the federal laws based on the question of constitutional authority. Meaning the federal government has no authority do so. Has nothing to do with "state's rights"
As for state laws, that would entirely depend on whether a state's constitution gave that state the authority to pass such laws. If the answer is no, then I object to that law based on the same reasons that I object to the federal law.
If the answer is yes, I laugh at whomever allowed that to happen, but conclude that the law is just and proper.
Poor SeaBytch, it must confuse you when people base their opinions on sound reasoning.
Actually a more correct statement would have been "Various groups have certainly fought for laws which unconstitutionally prevent one from refusing to do business with them." See public accommodation laws aren't inclusive of gays only. They include (depending on jurisdiction): race, religion, ethnicity, national origin, sex, military status, parental status, and marital status as well as sexual orientation.
So buy that logic there are many groups that fought for unconstitutional laws.
>>>>
Aren't just for gays? That's the understatement of the thread I'd say. PA laws have existed at the federal level in all 50 states since the 60s...but let's get outraged because the same laws that protect Christians in all 50 also protect gays in A LOT fewer.
If you weren't such a lying POS you would realize and admit that I have made it clear. PA laws shouldn't exist, has NOTHING to do with GAYS using such laws.
I never denied you said so. I already told you to call your congressman and get them repealed at the Federal level. You don't object to state laws now do you? "States rights" and all that....
You just are dumb
I object to the federal laws based on the question of constitutional authority. Meaning the federal government has no authority do so. Has nothing to do with "state's rights"
As for state laws, that would entirely depend on whether a state's constitution gave that state the authority to pass such laws. If the answer is no, then I object to that law based on the same reasons that I object to the federal law.
If the answer is yes, I laugh at whomever allowed that to happen, but conclude that the law is just and proper.
Poor SeaBytch, it must confuse you when people base their opinions on sound reasoning.
Have you called your congressman? Even Rand the Tribble Paul walked back his civil rights act comments. How much political will do you think there is to repeal PA laws?
Social Political Issues Pew Research Center s Religion Public Life Project
Yes it has something to do with states rights. Either states have the right to have PA laws or they don't. Do you or don't you support states rights?
If so, then you should really STFU since there are no PA laws that protect gays at the Federal level.
Why not just call him a n!gger since you love to throw that word around?Aren't just for gays? That's the understatement of the thread I'd say. PA laws have existed at the federal level in all 50 states since the 60s...but let's get outraged because the same laws that protect Christians in all 50 also protect gays in A LOT fewer.
If you weren't such a lying POS you would realize and admit that I have made it clear. PA laws shouldn't exist, has NOTHING to do with GAYS using such laws.
I never denied you said so. I already told you to call your congressman and get them repealed at the Federal level. You don't object to state laws now do you? "States rights" and all that....
You just are dumb
I object to the federal laws based on the question of constitutional authority. Meaning the federal government has no authority do so. Has nothing to do with "state's rights"
As for state laws, that would entirely depend on whether a state's constitution gave that state the authority to pass such laws. If the answer is no, then I object to that law based on the same reasons that I object to the federal law.
If the answer is yes, I laugh at whomever allowed that to happen, but conclude that the law is just and proper.
Poor SeaBytch, it must confuse you when people base their opinions on sound reasoning.
Have you called your congressman? Even Rand the Tribble Paul walked back his civil rights act comments. How much political will do you think there is to repeal PA laws?
Social Political Issues Pew Research Center s Religion Public Life Project
Yes it has something to do with states rights. Either states have the right to have PA laws or they don't. Do you or don't you support states rights?
If so, then you should really STFU since there are no PA laws that protect gays at the Federal level.
Gee, what a a surprise, you're STILL an idiot
The question of states right would only apply if the feds were trying to take a power from the states. In this case, they are not.
You fucking moron.
Aren't just for gays? That's the understatement of the thread I'd say. PA laws have existed at the federal level in all 50 states since the 60s...but let's get outraged because the same laws that protect Christians in all 50 also protect gays in A LOT fewer.
If you weren't such a lying POS you would realize and admit that I have made it clear. PA laws shouldn't exist, has NOTHING to do with GAYS using such laws.
I never denied you said so. I already told you to call your congressman and get them repealed at the Federal level. You don't object to state laws now do you? "States rights" and all that....
You just are dumb
I object to the federal laws based on the question of constitutional authority. Meaning the federal government has no authority do so. Has nothing to do with "state's rights"
As for state laws, that would entirely depend on whether a state's constitution gave that state the authority to pass such laws. If the answer is no, then I object to that law based on the same reasons that I object to the federal law.
If the answer is yes, I laugh at whomever allowed that to happen, but conclude that the law is just and proper.
Poor SeaBytch, it must confuse you when people base their opinions on sound reasoning.
Have you called your congressman? Even Rand the Tribble Paul walked back his civil rights act comments. How much political will do you think there is to repeal PA laws?
Social Political Issues Pew Research Center s Religion Public Life Project
Yes it has something to do with states rights. Either states have the right to have PA laws or they don't. Do you or don't you support states rights?
If so, then you should really STFU since there are no PA laws that protect gays at the Federal level.
Gee, what a a surprise, you're STILL an idiot
The question of states right would only apply if the feds were trying to take a power from the states. In this case, they are not.
You fucking moron.
I wonder how Fox News and the anti-gay bigots on this board would react if they heard about a business that refuses to serve Christians.
There's already been a thread on it. We acknowledged that gay bakers should be able to refuse service to Christians
Some of us aren't lying hypocrites.
Oh but Fox News would go ballistic- as would most of the "Moral Majority", as would most of the Christians on these boards
Oh, I'd go ape shit to, IF the law were applied unfairly. Who the fuck wouldn't?
Or, are you suggesting that because I oppose the law in principle I shouldn't be afforded it's protection?
I wonder how Fox News and the anti-gay bigots on this board would react if they heard about a business that refuses to serve Christians.
There's already been a thread on it. We acknowledged that gay bakers should be able to refuse service to Christians
Some of us aren't lying hypocrites.
Oh but Fox News would go ballistic- as would most of the "Moral Majority", as would most of the Christians on these boards
Oh, I'd go ape shit to, IF the law were applied unfairly. Who the fuck wouldn't?
Or, are you suggesting that because I oppose the law in principle I shouldn't be afforded it's protection?
Lets review the discussion- shall we?
1) I wonder how Fox News and the anti-gay bigots on this board would react if they heard about a business that refuses to serve Christians
2)(your response) here's already been a thread on it. We acknowledged that gay bakers should be able to refuse service to Christians(presumably you were answering on behalf of the anti-gay bigots and not Fox News)
3)(my post- regarding Fox News which you had left out)Oh but Fox News would go ballistic- as would most of the "Moral Majority", as would most of the Christians on these boards
I really can't even figure out what your point is supposed to be- you first of all say that gay bakers should be able to refuse service to Christians and then you say you would go ballistic if they did.
Yes Fox News would go balliistic- not because Christians were being unfairly targeted- but because it was Christians targeted not homosexuals. Fox would be fine with uneven application of the law as long as it favors Fox's viewing base- and inflames them.
