Whatever ever happened to the little sign ‘We have a right to refuse service’?

[Silhouette]

When you say "...for minorities, women, gays..." what category do "gays" fall into" And why just LGBT? When you say "gays" do you mean "LGBT" just? Or are polygamists and other sexual deviants [deviating from a majority rule] behaviors also included?

Don't forget the topic while you're arguing nuances of the conservative vs left movement. This thread is about forcing people to see gays as a race and via that false premise, force them to "speak out" in support of homosexuality itself as if the behavior was a religion that cannot be touched and is federally-recognized. "Speaking out" includes fashioning cakes and photographs of the gay lifestyle against a person's core values. It's a violation of their 1st Amendment rights on two fronts. 1. Religion and 2. Right to free speech [or the right not to have to speak out in favor of something against your values]. As it turns out, "gay rights" = psychological bondage for the majority. We are talking about behaviors vs behaviors; practices vs practices. One group cannot legally dominate another to the extent of extinguishing their 1st Amendment rights.

I'm fully aware of the fact that this country is infested with numskulls like you who will have to be educated for the next 20 years to undo all the damage you have done.

I see, so you believe that if you can get the American public to "think" as you do, starting here, you can change the country into, what is that you believe in again?

And what the SC says is the law of the land, whether you like it or not. I deal in reality, that is reality.

If you deal in reality, do you deal in the reality of LGBT being learned or chosen behaviors? Because that's what over 300+ peer-reviewed studies from the world's most prestigious institutions have found: http://www.usmessageboard.com/curre...wins-gay-legal-challenges-simple-as-that.html

The links to those studies are in that OP.

And if the reality of LGBT being learned behaviors sinks in, the next reality for you to examine would be "why do just those behaviors get a special pass as race, and all the others don't"?

Let me guess. Your answer will be "because other behaviors are objectionable to the majority". And therein you have just sunk your own ship.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

I made a mistake by using the modern connotation of the word. In those days, "intrastate commerce" meant the shipment of goods between states. It did not mean telling every restaurant and gas station owner who they had to serve.

It also doesn't mean that they thought private affairs shouldn't be regulated. The wrote the idea into the bloody Constitution, and 50 years ago the No ******* motel was told to take down the sign and change their policy using that very clause.

Your post is nonsensical. I assume you meant to say the Founding Father supported federal regulation of private affairs. Nothing could be further from the truth.

They supported the regulation of commerce, exactly the opposite of your statement.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

Modern lefties despise everything the Founding Fathers believed in, include most of the rights listed in the Bill of Rights. Likewise, the Founders would throw up upon learning what modern lefties support.

Nonsense. And we know a lot more than they did at the time.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

When you say "...for minorities, women, gays..." what category do "gays" fall into" And why just LGBT? When you say "gays" do you mean "LGBT" just? Or are polygamists and other sexual deviants [deviating from a majority rule] behaviors also included?

Don't forget the topic while you're arguing nuances of the conservative vs left movement. This thread is about forcing people to see gays as a race and via that false premise, force them to "speak out" in support of homosexuality itself as if the behavior was a religion that cannot be touched and is federally-recognized. "Speaking out" includes fashioning cakes and photographs of the gay lifestyle against a person's core values. It's a violation of their 1st Amendment rights on two fronts. 1. Religion and 2. Right to free speech [or the right not to have to speak out in favor of something against your values]. As it turns out, "gay rights" = psychological bondage for the majority. We are talking about behaviors vs behaviors; practices vs practices. One group cannot legally dominate another to the extent of extinguishing their 1st Amendment rights.

I'm fully aware of the fact that this country is infested with numskulls like you who will have to be educated for the next 20 years to undo all the damage you have done.

I see, so you believe that if you can get the American public to "think" as you do, starting here, you can change the country into, what is that you believe in again?

And what the SC says is the law of the land, whether you like it or not. I deal in reality, that is reality.

If you deal in reality, do you deal in the reality of LGBT being learned or chosen behaviors? Because that's what over 300+ peer-reviewed studies from the world's most prestigious institutions have found: http://www.usmessageboard.com/curre...wins-gay-legal-challenges-simple-as-that.html

The links to those studies are in that OP.

And if the reality of LGBT being learned behaviors sinks in, the next reality for you to examine would be "why do just those behaviors get a special pass as race, and all the others don't"?

Let me guess. Your answer will be "because other behaviors are objectionable to the majority". And therein you have just sunk your own ship.

Your understanding of homosexuality is nonsense, pure homophobic nonsense.

 

[bripat9643]

It also doesn't mean that they thought private affairs shouldn't be regulated. The wrote the idea into the bloody Constitution, and 50 years ago the No ******* motel was told to take down the sign and change their policy using that very clause.

Your post is nonsensical. I assume you meant to say the Founding Father supported federal regulation of private affairs. Nothing could be further from the truth.

They supported the regulation of commerce, exactly the opposite of your statement.

I already explained that the word "commerce" didn't mean the same thing it means now. I realize you will continue to ignore that point, so I'll just point out the fact that you're a dumbass who doesn't even know when he's been beaten.

 

[bripat9643]

Modern lefties despise everything the Founding Fathers believed in, include most of the rights listed in the Bill of Rights. Likewise, the Founders would throw up upon learning what modern lefties support.

Nonsense. And we know a lot more than they did at the time.

It's the simple truth, and you don't know anything that would make a difference as far as government is concerned.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

Modern lefties despise everything the Founding Fathers believed in, include most of the rights listed in the Bill of Rights. Likewise, the Founders would throw up upon learning what modern lefties support.

Nonsense. And we know a lot more than they did at the time.

It's the simple truth, and you don't know anything that would make a difference as far as government is concerned.

Oh we know vastly more, and we have 220 years of experience to base our reasoning on. They didn't write the Constitution on Stone Tables thinking they were Gods. They expected us to change their design as we needed to because the times and needs changed. Their words, not mine. Read them.

 

[rightwinger]

Nonsense. And we know a lot more than they did at the time.

It's the simple truth, and you don't know anything that would make a difference as far as government is concerned.

Oh we know vastly more, and we have 220 years of experience to base our reasoning on. They didn't write the Constitution on Stone Tables thinking they were Gods. They expected us to change their design as we needed to because the times and needs changed. Their words, not mine. Read them.

"I am not an advocate for frequent changes in laws and constitutions, but laws and constitutions must go hand in hand with the progress of the human mind. As that becomes more developed, more enlightened, as new discoveries are made, new truths discovered and manners and opinions change, with the change of circumstances, institutions must advance also to keep pace with the times. We might as well require a man to wear still the coat which fitted him when a boy as a civilized society to remain ever under the regimen of their barbarous ancestors."

Thomas Jefferson-Excerpted from a letter to Samuel Kercheval, July 12, 1816

 

[PaintMyHouse]

Your post is nonsensical. I assume you meant to say the Founding Father supported federal regulation of private affairs. Nothing could be further from the truth.

They supported the regulation of commerce, exactly the opposite of your statement.

I already explained that the word "commerce" didn't mean the same thing it means now. I realize you will continue to ignore that point, so I'll just point out the fact that you're a dumbass who doesn't even know when he's been beaten.

Your opinion of what the word means is as invalid as most of your opinions. You are very simply wrong about them thinking all private transactions would be unregulated.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

It's the simple truth, and you don't know anything that would make a difference as far as government is concerned.

Oh we know vastly more, and we have 220 years of experience to base our reasoning on. They didn't write the Constitution on Stone Tables thinking they were Gods. They expected us to change their design as we needed to because the times and needs changed. Their words, not mine. Read them.

"I am not an advocate for frequent changes in laws and constitutions, but laws and constitutions must go hand in hand with the progress of the human mind. As that becomes more developed, more enlightened, as new discoveries are made, new truths discovered and manners and opinions change, with the change of circumstances, institutions must advance also to keep pace with the times. We might as well require a man to wear still the coat which fitted him when a boy as a civilized society to remain ever under the regimen of their barbarous ancestors."

Thomas Jefferson-Excerpted from a letter to Samuel Kercheval, July 12, 1816

TY, a classic.

 

[Silhouette]

When you say "...for minorities, women, gays..." what category do "gays" fall into" And why just LGBT? When you say "gays" do you mean "LGBT" just? Or are polygamists and other sexual deviants [deviating from a majority rule] behaviors also included?

Don't forget the topic while you're arguing nuances of the conservative vs left movement. This thread is about forcing people to see gays as a race and via that false premise, force them to "speak out" in support of homosexuality itself as if the behavior was a religion that cannot be touched and is federally-recognized. "Speaking out" includes fashioning cakes and photographs of the gay lifestyle against a person's core values. It's a violation of their 1st Amendment rights on two fronts. 1. Religion and 2. Right to free speech [or the right not to have to speak out in favor of something against your values]. As it turns out, "gay rights" = psychological bondage for the majority. We are talking about behaviors vs behaviors; practices vs practices. One group cannot legally dominate another to the extent of extinguishing their 1st Amendment rights.

I see, so you believe that if you can get the American public to "think" as you do, starting here, you can change the country into, what is that you believe in again?

And what the SC says is the law of the land, whether you like it or not. I deal in reality, that is reality.

If you deal in reality, do you deal in the reality of LGBT being learned or chosen behaviors? Because that's what over 300+ peer-reviewed studies from the world's most prestigious institutions have found: http://www.usmessageboard.com/curre...wins-gay-legal-challenges-simple-as-that.html

The links to those studies are in that OP.

And if the reality of LGBT being learned behaviors sinks in, the next reality for you to examine would be "why do just those behaviors get a special pass as race, and all the others don't"?

Let me guess. Your answer will be "because other behaviors are objectionable to the majority". And therein you have just sunk your own ship.

Your understanding of homosexuality is nonsense, pure homophobic nonsense.

Apparently many people who have read the articles from the Mayo Clinic, the CDC and the university in Quebec have voted that they comprehend from them that sexual orientation of deviants is learned.

Here are some sub-categories from one of the links within the OP of the link in the quote above:

INFLUENCE OF LEARNING ON SEXUAL
EXCITEMENT

INFLUENCE OF LEARNING ON
LOCATING A MATE

INFLUENCE OF LEARNING ON
OVERCOMING OBSTACLES TO MATING

INFLUENCE OF LEARNING ON
COURTSHIP BEHAVIOR

INFLUENCE OF LEARNING ON SEXUAL
AROUSAL AND COPULATORY
BEHAVIORS

INFLUENCE OF LEARNING ON SEXUAL
PARTNER PREFERENCES

And the 300+ studies cited in the bibliography of that scientific review are peer-reviewed themselves. They involve the study of many lower species of animals. However "Influence of learning" is paramount in homo sapiens over all lower animals. We are the kings of social-learning.

So since sexual preference is learned, it is a behavior and not a race. Ergo, it cannot be handled as "race" as to legal considerations. Behaviors cannot be elevated one over the other in a majority-rule society. So there's a huge snag for LGBT supported by reams of presitigious peer-reviewed scientific FACTS. Quite properly, therefore, LGBT is a very clever cult who has set out to usurp democratic rule and overtake a majority that is otherwise in full objection to their practices. Their leadership is adept at manipulating, blackmailing, milking sympathy, using smoke and mirrors and distraction to a perfected art. I've interacted for years with one of them. And believe me, there is no trick they will not use in perinneal flexibility to exact their revenge...and goals... If there was one word to sum up the LGBT movement as a personality trait it would be "sociopath".

Gays using the false premise that they are innate and thereby a "race" renders out legally in one group of behaviors telling another, with the potency of the courts, "I am arbitrarily dominant over you". And that, of course, is the courts inadvertently and incorrectly supporting fascism and the demolition thereby of majority-rule. If the majority cannot regulate and set standards of acceptable behavior, who gets to? Goodbye America.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

Gays using the false premise that they are innate and thereby a "race" renders out legally in one group of behaviors telling another, with the legal blessings of the courts, "I am arbitrarily dominant over you". And that, of course, is the courts inadvertently supporting fascism and the demolition thereby of majority-rule. If the majority cannot regulate and set standards of acceptable behavior, who gets to? Goodbye America.

I've lived a long time, I've known a lot of homosexuals, some of them since they were babies and are now gay adults, which was fully expected since we spotted their orientation very early on. They were quite obviously gay.

Your links and rants are nothing more than your homophobic mind at work. Reality is not to your liking but I really couldn't care less.

 

[Silhouette]

Gays using the false premise that they are innate and thereby a "race" renders out legally in one group of behaviors telling another, with the legal blessings of the courts, "I am arbitrarily dominant over you". And that, of course, is the courts inadvertently supporting fascism and the demolition thereby of majority-rule. If the majority cannot regulate and set standards of acceptable behavior, who gets to? Goodbye America.

I've lived a long time, I've known a lot of homosexuals, some of them since they were babies and are now gay adults, which was fully expected since we spotted their orientation very early on. They were quite obviously gay.

Your links and rants are nothing more than your homophobic mind at work. Reality is not to your liking but I really couldn't care less.

Yes, I'll bet you did...

Learning begins very early in life. Especially when adults help foster certain orientations via subtle, and not so subtle cues and influences.

ATLANTA [2005 Clinical Psychiatry News] -- Substance abuse is pervasive among gay men and is so intricately intertwined with epidemics of depression, partner abuse, and childhood sexual abuse that adequately addressing one issue requires attention to the others as well, said Ronald Stall, Ph.D., chief of prevention research for the division of HIV/AIDS prevention at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta...

Mayo Clinic 2007

One of the most obvious examples of an environmental
factor that increases the chances of an individual becoming
an offender is if he or she were sexually abused as a child.
This relationship is known as the “victim-to-abuser cycle”
or “abused-abusers phenomena.”
5,23,24,46...

...
why the “abused abusers phenomena” occurs: identification with the aggressor,
in which the abused child is trying to gain a new
identity by becoming the abuser; an imprinted sexual
arousal pattern established by early abuse; early abuse
leading to hypersexual behavior; or a form of social learning took place http://www.drrichardhall.com/Articles/pedophiles.pdf

Do you not yet see the danger to human civilization of normalizing a certain select [for now] set of deviant sexual behaviors?

Pay attention to this harbinger: LGBTs already revere, iconize and apologize for a man who was plucking mentally ill homeless orphaned teen minors off the streets to sodomize and simultaneously act as father/guardian to. His name was Harvey Milk. LGBTs across the US, Mexico and Canada just petitioned successfully to get "legitimacy" added to their cult by having the US Postal Service issue a commemorative stamp with rainbow "USA" on it of Harvey Milk. A stamp of a known and documented [read his biography] child sex predator is now an American icon.

The danger is real. And the children are our most vulnerable citizens. This is a CULT. It is not a race of people...

 

[bripat9643]

They supported the regulation of commerce, exactly the opposite of your statement.

I already explained that the word "commerce" didn't mean the same thing it means now. I realize you will continue to ignore that point, so I'll just point out the fact that you're a dumbass who doesn't even know when he's been beaten.

Your opinion of what the word means is as invalid as most of your opinions. You are very simply wrong about them thinking all private transactions would be unregulated.

It's not my opinion, dumbass. It's a documented fact. You can read the evidence here:

102RP6

 

[DrDoomNGloom]

Gays using the false premise that they are innate and thereby a "race" renders out legally in one group of behaviors telling another, with the legal blessings of the courts, "I am arbitrarily dominant over you". And that, of course, is the courts inadvertently supporting fascism and the demolition thereby of majority-rule. If the majority cannot regulate and set standards of acceptable behavior, who gets to? Goodbye America.

I've lived a long time, I've known a lot of homosexuals, some of them since they were babies and are now gay adults, which was fully expected since we spotted their orientation very early on. They were quite obviously gay.

Your links and rants are nothing more than your homophobic mind at work. Reality is not to your liking but I really couldn't care less.

Why is it when homosexuals are confronted with scientific evidence contrary to their talking points, the first thing they do is holla "Homophobic"??

I guess I need to tell you the same thing I told the last fag, I am not homophobic, I am aware of you homosexuals. I have been told by men and women alike that I am good looking, Talk about reality, at least if a woman i looking at me and thinking about getting busy then the attention might be wanted, but with another man who is thinking about getting busy then the attention is not wanted. Would be alright if that were the end of it, but most of you are pushy .... I had a gay black man that was a customer, every time he walked in the door he wanted to hug me. Now I don't even hug my white adult male friends, we might shake hands , but they ain't never tried to hug me .... I have had to physically push this man off form my body space, why can you homosexuals not keep within your own cultures?? Why do you have to flaunt it to try and entice others to your way of thinking??

I have posted several of these pieces in your thread, I noticed you have yet to sensibly reply to any of it....

 

[PaintMyHouse]

I already explained that the word "commerce" didn't mean the same thing it means now. I realize you will continue to ignore that point, so I'll just point out the fact that you're a dumbass who doesn't even know when he's been beaten.

Your opinion of what the word means is as invalid as most of your opinions. You are very simply wrong about them thinking all private transactions would be unregulated.

It's not my opinion, dumbass. It's a documented fact. You can read the evidence here:

102RP6

Limited or not, it still allowed for the regulation of private transactions. You lost before you started.

 

[Flopper]

I guess I need to tell you the same thing I told the last fag, I am not homophobic,...

That's an interesting statement.

 

[bripat9643]

Your opinion of what the word means is as invalid as most of your opinions. You are very simply wrong about them thinking all private transactions would be unregulated.

It's not my opinion, dumbass. It's a documented fact. You can read the evidence here:

102RP6

Limited or not, it still allowed for the regulation of private transactions. You lost before you started.

No it didn't, dumbass. It only allowed regulation of transactions between states. The only reason the commerce clause was added to the Constitution was the fact that prior to its adoption states enacted numerous regulations designed to obstruct commerce between the states. The commerce clause was intended to limit such regulations, not give the federal government a blank check to restrict commerce.

From the article I referred you to:

The most persuasive evidence of original meaning--statements made during the drafting and ratification of the Constitution as well as dictionary definitions and The Federalist Papers--strongly supports Justice Thomas's and the Progressive Era Supreme Court's narrow interpretation of Congress's power "To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes."214 "Commerce" means the trade or exchange of goods (including the means of transporting them); "among the several States" means between persons of one state and another; and the term "To regulate" means "to make regular"--that is, to specify how an activity may be transacted--when applied to domestic commerce, but also includes the power to make "prohibitory regulations" when applied to foreign trade. In sum, Congress has power to specify rules to govern the manner by which people may exchange or trade goods from one state to another, to remove obstructions to domestic trade erected by states, and to both regulate and restrict the flow of goods to and from other nations (and the Indian tribes) for the purpose of promoting the domestic economy and foreign trade.

Turds like you have been telling the same lies about the commerce clause since the FDR administration.

 

[bripat9643]

Gays using the false premise that they are innate and thereby a "race" renders out legally in one group of behaviors telling another, with the legal blessings of the courts, "I am arbitrarily dominant over you". And that, of course, is the courts inadvertently supporting fascism and the demolition thereby of majority-rule. If the majority cannot regulate and set standards of acceptable behavior, who gets to? Goodbye America.

I've lived a long time, I've known a lot of homosexuals, some of them since they were babies and are now gay adults, which was fully expected since we spotted their orientation very early on. They were quite obviously gay.

Your links and rants are nothing more than your homophobic mind at work. Reality is not to your liking but I really couldn't care less.

Why is it when homosexuals are confronted with scientific evidence contrary to their talking points, the first thing they do is holla "Homophobic"??

I guess I need to tell you the same thing I told the last fag, I am not homophobic, I am aware of you homosexuals. I have been told by men and women alike that I am good looking, Talk about reality, at least if a woman i looking at me and thinking about getting busy then the attention might be wanted, but with another man who is thinking about getting busy then the attention is not wanted. Would be alright if that were the end of it, but most of you are pushy .... I had a gay black man that was a customer, every time he walked in the door he wanted to hug me. Now I don't even hug my white adult male friends, we might shake hands , but they ain't never tried to hug me .... I have had to physically push this man off form my body space, why can you homosexuals not keep within your own cultures?? Why do you have to flaunt it to try and entice others to your way of thinking??

I have posted several of these pieces in your thread, I noticed you have yet to sensibly reply to any of it....

Liberal dictionary
======================================
Homophobic - disagrees with homosexuals.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

I've lived a long time, I've known a lot of homosexuals, some of them since they were babies and are now gay adults, which was fully expected since we spotted their orientation very early on. They were quite obviously gay.

Your links and rants are nothing more than your homophobic mind at work. Reality is not to your liking but I really couldn't care less.

Why is it when homosexuals are confronted with scientific evidence contrary to their talking points, the first thing they do is holla "Homophobic"??

I guess I need to tell you the same thing I told the last fag, I am not homophobic, I am aware of you homosexuals. I have been told by men and women alike that I am good looking, Talk about reality, at least if a woman i looking at me and thinking about getting busy then the attention might be wanted, but with another man who is thinking about getting busy then the attention is not wanted. Would be alright if that were the end of it, but most of you are pushy .... I had a gay black man that was a customer, every time he walked in the door he wanted to hug me. Now I don't even hug my white adult male friends, we might shake hands , but they ain't never tried to hug me .... I have had to physically push this man off form my body space, why can you homosexuals not keep within your own cultures?? Why do you have to flaunt it to try and entice others to your way of thinking??

I have posted several of these pieces in your thread, I noticed you have yet to sensibly reply to any of it....

Liberal dictionary
======================================
Homophobic - disagrees with homosexuals.

In her case it is homophobia.