EvilCat Breath
Diamond Member
- Sep 23, 2016
- 79,550
- 55,486
- 2,645
Has a gay person, yet, complained that they went into a bakery and had to leave with no cookies?
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.
They want to force their views on everybody and control everybody… Shit for brainsNo one is forcing their views on anyone, the LGBT community just wants the same rights and privileges as anyone else.That's it exactly, Marty, local elities can't block civil rights.
Period.
So, if the WY lege passes it and the Gov signs it, the legislation then goes to federal court and will be overturned.
Waste of the taxpayers' money.
Depends on the Court.
Still the fault of the LGBT progressive extremists who feel the need to force their views on others.
That is outright discrimination. Its not about sinful and has nothing to do with that, its all about discriminationSince when is the LBGT community not entitled to the same rights and protections as any other AmericanFrom a friend in Wyoming:
The Wyoming State Legislature is considering a bill that, if passed, would become the most oppressive and wide-ranging anti-LGBT law in the nation. It would allow social workers to deny aid, teachers to not teach, health care workers to deny service not only to individuals that identify as LGBT, but their children as well. And that is just part of the bill... this bill tells our LGBT brothers and sisters that they are not worthy to receive services a straight cisgendered individual can receive.
HB-135 is scheduled to be voted upon by the Wyoming House Judiciary Committee this week, its first step toward becoming law. Please call and/or email members of this committee (contact info pasted below) and tell them to VOTE NO ON HB-135. No hate in the equality state!
Remember: Be firm but polite; introduce yourself and say where you're from; make your message personal.
Wyoming House Judiciary Committee -
Dan Kirkbride (Chugwater)
Cell - (307) 331-2265
[email protected]
Mark Baker (Rock Springs)
Cell - (307) 371-5113
[email protected]
Bo Biteman (Ranchester)
Cell - (307) 763-7613
[email protected]
Mark Jennings (Sheridan)
Cell - (307) 461-0697
[email protected]
Jared Olsen (Cheyenne)
Cell - (307) 509-0242
[email protected]
Charles Pelkey (Laramie)
Cell - (307) 920-0542
[email protected]
Bill Pownall (Gillette)
Home - (307) 682-4148
[email protected]
Tim Salazar (Dubois)
Cell - (307) 220-1213
[email protected]
Nathan Winters (Thermopolis)
Home - (307) 864-3690
[email protected]
This is what you get when you use courts to force gay marriage on places that don't want it, and force non-essential businesses to either "bake or die".
When your side becomes unreasonable, don't be surprised when the other side does the exact same thing.
They may be entitled to it, but their rights do not automatically outweigh the rights of others, as in a right of a baker to not participate in a ceremony it finds sinful.
As you tried to do during the Obama years. Forget already?They want to force their views on everybody and control everybody… Shit for brainsNo one is forcing their views on anyone, the LGBT community just wants the same rights and privileges as anyone else.That's it exactly, Marty, local elities can't block civil rights.
Period.
So, if the WY lege passes it and the Gov signs it, the legislation then goes to federal court and will be overturned.
Waste of the taxpayers' money.
Depends on the Court.
Still the fault of the LGBT progressive extremists who feel the need to force their views on others.
That is outright discrimination. Its not about sinful and has nothing to do with that, its all about discriminationSince when is the LBGT community not entitled to the same rights and protections as any other AmericanFrom a friend in Wyoming:
The Wyoming State Legislature is considering a bill that, if passed, would become the most oppressive and wide-ranging anti-LGBT law in the nation. It would allow social workers to deny aid, teachers to not teach, health care workers to deny service not only to individuals that identify as LGBT, but their children as well. And that is just part of the bill... this bill tells our LGBT brothers and sisters that they are not worthy to receive services a straight cisgendered individual can receive.
HB-135 is scheduled to be voted upon by the Wyoming House Judiciary Committee this week, its first step toward becoming law. Please call and/or email members of this committee (contact info pasted below) and tell them to VOTE NO ON HB-135. No hate in the equality state!
Remember: Be firm but polite; introduce yourself and say where you're from; make your message personal.
Wyoming House Judiciary Committee -
Dan Kirkbride (Chugwater)
Cell - (307) 331-2265
[email protected]
Mark Baker (Rock Springs)
Cell - (307) 371-5113
[email protected]
Bo Biteman (Ranchester)
Cell - (307) 763-7613
[email protected]
Mark Jennings (Sheridan)
Cell - (307) 461-0697
[email protected]
Jared Olsen (Cheyenne)
Cell - (307) 509-0242
[email protected]
Charles Pelkey (Laramie)
Cell - (307) 920-0542
[email protected]
Bill Pownall (Gillette)
Home - (307) 682-4148
[email protected]
Tim Salazar (Dubois)
Cell - (307) 220-1213
[email protected]
Nathan Winters (Thermopolis)
Home - (307) 864-3690
[email protected]
This is what you get when you use courts to force gay marriage on places that don't want it, and force non-essential businesses to either "bake or die".
When your side becomes unreasonable, don't be surprised when the other side does the exact same thing.
They may be entitled to it, but their rights do not automatically outweigh the rights of others, as in a right of a baker to not participate in a ceremony it finds sinful.
It is FEDERAL law that requires the gay to serve the Christian in all 50 states. Funny that nobody is going after that law....
Maybe because most Christians wouldn't want to force someone who doesn't want to do a specific, non-essential and timely task?
Or Gays can create their own religion and make one of its tenets that Christianity is sinful.
Really? So why the Federal protection for Christians? Your response doesn't really answer my question at all.
How many gay people have been ruined for not selling to Christians?
Sounds like the religious right and the Republican bigots who are kissing their ass.They want to force their views on everybody and control everybody… Shit for brainsNo one is forcing their views on anyone, the LGBT community just wants the same rights and privileges as anyone else.That's it exactly, Marty, local elities can't block civil rights.
Period.
So, if the WY lege passes it and the Gov signs it, the legislation then goes to federal court and will be overturned.
Waste of the taxpayers' money.
Depends on the Court.
Still the fault of the LGBT progressive extremists who feel the need to force their views on others.
That is outright discrimination. Its not about sinful and has nothing to do with that, its all about discriminationSince when is the LBGT community not entitled to the same rights and protections as any other AmericanFrom a friend in Wyoming:
The Wyoming State Legislature is considering a bill that, if passed, would become the most oppressive and wide-ranging anti-LGBT law in the nation. It would allow social workers to deny aid, teachers to not teach, health care workers to deny service not only to individuals that identify as LGBT, but their children as well. And that is just part of the bill... this bill tells our LGBT brothers and sisters that they are not worthy to receive services a straight cisgendered individual can receive.
HB-135 is scheduled to be voted upon by the Wyoming House Judiciary Committee this week, its first step toward becoming law. Please call and/or email members of this committee (contact info pasted below) and tell them to VOTE NO ON HB-135. No hate in the equality state!
Remember: Be firm but polite; introduce yourself and say where you're from; make your message personal.
Wyoming House Judiciary Committee -
Dan Kirkbride (Chugwater)
Cell - (307) 331-2265
[email protected]
Mark Baker (Rock Springs)
Cell - (307) 371-5113
[email protected]
Bo Biteman (Ranchester)
Cell - (307) 763-7613
[email protected]
Mark Jennings (Sheridan)
Cell - (307) 461-0697
[email protected]
Jared Olsen (Cheyenne)
Cell - (307) 509-0242
[email protected]
Charles Pelkey (Laramie)
Cell - (307) 920-0542
[email protected]
Bill Pownall (Gillette)
Home - (307) 682-4148
[email protected]
Tim Salazar (Dubois)
Cell - (307) 220-1213
[email protected]
Nathan Winters (Thermopolis)
Home - (307) 864-3690
[email protected]
This is what you get when you use courts to force gay marriage on places that don't want it, and force non-essential businesses to either "bake or die".
When your side becomes unreasonable, don't be surprised when the other side does the exact same thing.
They may be entitled to it, but their rights do not automatically outweigh the rights of others, as in a right of a baker to not participate in a ceremony it finds sinful.
Sounds like the religious right and the Republican bigots who are kissing their ass.
No! and tis is why A Tale of Two Cakes: The Real Truth About Colorado's Cake Wars | The Huffington PostSounds like the religious right and the Republican bigots who are kissing their ass.
So you support Christians being able to force gay graphic designers to print giant billboards for busy highways that say "Homosexuality is a sin unto God", right?
Sounds like the religious right and the Republican bigots who are kissing their ass.
So you support Christians being able to force gay graphic designers to print giant billboards for busy highways that say "Homosexuality is a sin unto God", right?
Then you understand that LGBT is about behaviors and not a static thing like race or gender...right? And this was the premise upon which Hivey v Ivy Tech (7th circuit 2016) was decided...No! and tis is why A Tale of Two Cakes: The Real Truth About Colorado's Cake Wars | The Huffington Post
In any case we are talking about "forcing beliefs" as though that were possible. No speech or behavior.
First, why would it matter if the graphic designers were gay or not? Many heterosexuals would also find the message one they would not want to support.Sounds like the religious right and the Republican bigots who are kissing their ass.
So you support Christians being able to force gay graphic designers to print giant billboards for busy highways that say "Homosexuality is a sin unto God", right?
Hively v Ivy Tech has been review by the entire court, so it's not settled yet.Sounds like the religious right and the Republican bigots who are kissing their ass.
So you support Christians being able to force gay graphic designers to print giant billboards for busy highways that say "Homosexuality is a sin unto God", right?Then you understand that LGBT is about behaviors and not a static thing like race or gender...right? And this was the premise upon which Hivey v Ivy Tech (7th circuit 2016) was decided...No! and tis is why A Tale of Two Cakes: The Real Truth About Colorado's Cake Wars | The Huffington Post
In any case we are talking about "forcing beliefs" as though that were possible. No speech or behavior.
Sounds like the religious right and the Republican bigots who are kissing their ass.
So you support Christians being able to force gay graphic designers to print giant billboards for busy highways that say "Homosexuality is a sin unto God", right?
Then you understand that LGBT is about behaviors and not a static thing like race or gender...right? And this was the premise upon which Hivey v Ivy Tech (7th circuit 2016) was decided...No! and tis is why A Tale of Two Cakes: The Real Truth About Colorado's Cake Wars | The Huffington Post
In any case we are talking about "forcing beliefs" as though that were possible. No speech or behavior.
Hively v Ivy Tech has been review by the entire court, so it's not settled yet.
But mostly, your analysis is waaaay off. Kimberly Hively v. Ivy Tech Community College
The ruling by the 3-judge panel was that the Civil Rights Law of 1964 did not protect GLBT in general. That non-conformity to gender stereotypes does fall under the prohibition against sex discrimination (fired for acting too butch or too feminine), but that that's not the case is here. The ruling was that Ms. Hively was discriminated against, but it wasn't illegal.
From a friend in Wyoming:
The Wyoming State Legislature is considering a bill that, if passed, would become the most oppressive and wide-ranging anti-LGBT law in the nation. It would allow social workers to deny aid, teachers to not teach, health care workers to deny service not only to individuals that identify as LGBT, but their children as well. And that is just part of the bill... this bill tells our LGBT brothers and sisters that they are not worthy to receive services a straight cisgendered individual can receive.
HB-135 is scheduled to be voted upon by the Wyoming House Judiciary Committee this week, its first step toward becoming law. Please call and/or email members of this committee (contact info pasted below) and tell them to VOTE NO ON HB-135. No hate in the equality state!
Remember: Be firm but polite; introduce yourself and say where you're from; make your message personal.
Wyoming House Judiciary Committee -
Dan Kirkbride (Chugwater)
Cell - (307) 331-2265
[email protected]
Mark Baker (Rock Springs)
Cell - (307) 371-5113
[email protected]
Bo Biteman (Ranchester)
Cell - (307) 763-7613
[email protected]
Mark Jennings (Sheridan)
Cell - (307) 461-0697
[email protected]
Jared Olsen (Cheyenne)
Cell - (307) 509-0242
[email protected]
Charles Pelkey (Laramie)
Cell - (307) 920-0542
[email protected]
Bill Pownall (Gillette)
Home - (307) 682-4148
[email protected]
Tim Salazar (Dubois)
Cell - (307) 220-1213
[email protected]
Nathan Winters (Thermopolis)
Home - (307) 864-3690
[email protected]
Interpretations differ. The 7th Circuit recognized that a good argument could be made that Title VII does indeed cover sexual orientation as a logical part of its prohibition on sex-discrimination. But Ms. Hively didn't make that case. "The EEOC's criticism has created a groundswell of questions about the rationale for denying sexual orientation claims while allowing nearly indistinguishable gender non-conformity claims, which courts have long recognized as a form of sex-based discrimination under Title VII. After a careful analysis of our precedent, however, this court must conclude that Kimberly Hively has failed to state a claim under Title VII for sex discrimination; her claim is solely for sexual orientation discrimination which is beyond the scope of the statute. Consequently, we affirm the decision of the district court."Hively v Ivy Tech has been review by the entire court, so it's not settled yet.
But mostly, your analysis is waaaay off. Kimberly Hively v. Ivy Tech Community College
The ruling by the 3-judge panel was that the Civil Rights Law of 1964 did not protect GLBT in general. That non-conformity to gender stereotypes does fall under the prohibition against sex discrimination (fired for acting too butch or too feminine), but that that's not the case is here. The ruling was that Ms. Hively was discriminated against, but it wasn't illegal.
Why doesn't the 1964 Civil Rights Act cover/insinuate/anticipate coverage of the addictive deviant sex behaviors "GLBT"? Neither the Constitution nor the Act have protections for non-conformity behaviors. That's up to states to regulate.
She was a math teacher. She was caught kissing her girlfriend in a car. During the next four years she was denied promotion and eventually fired. Ivy Tech is denying they fired her because she's a lesbian.The reason Hively was discriminated against is because employers have certain decorum to maintain. I believe she was trying to be a lesbian in the sports complex of the school...which meant direct access to naked girls in the locker room and showers. Naked girls, to which she is sexually oriented. Ivy Tech would have been equally appropriate in denying employment to a man applying for the same position. Imagine the damage to the school if the word got out "yeah, that's the place where the locker room coach is an open lesbian". Appropriately the same as saying "yeah, that's the school where the girls' locker room coach is a man".. Parents would look elsewhere..
From a friend in Wyoming:
The Wyoming State Legislature is considering a bill that, if passed, would become the most oppressive and wide-ranging anti-LGBT law in the nation. It would allow social workers to deny aid, teachers to not teach, health care workers to deny service not only to individuals that identify as LGBT, but their children as well. And that is just part of the bill... this bill tells our LGBT brothers and sisters that they are not worthy to receive services a straight cisgendered individual can receive.
HB-135 is scheduled to be voted upon by the Wyoming House Judiciary Committee this week, its first step toward becoming law. Please call and/or email members of this committee (contact info pasted below) and tell them to VOTE NO ON HB-135. No hate in the equality state!
Remember: Be firm but polite; introduce yourself and say where you're from; make your message personal.
Wyoming House Judiciary Committee -
Dan Kirkbride (Chugwater)
Cell - (307) 331-2265
[email protected]
Mark Baker (Rock Springs)
Cell - (307) 371-5113
[email protected]
Bo Biteman (Ranchester)
Cell - (307) 763-7613
[email protected]
Mark Jennings (Sheridan)
Cell - (307) 461-0697
[email protected]
Jared Olsen (Cheyenne)
Cell - (307) 509-0242
[email protected]
Charles Pelkey (Laramie)
Cell - (307) 920-0542
[email protected]
Bill Pownall (Gillette)
Home - (307) 682-4148
[email protected]
Tim Salazar (Dubois)
Cell - (307) 220-1213
[email protected]
Nathan Winters (Thermopolis)
Home - (307) 864-3690
[email protected]
She was a math teacher. She was caught kissing her girlfriend in a car. During the next four years she was denied promotion and eventually fired. Ivy Tech is denying they fired her because she's a lesbian.Imagine the damage to the school if the word got out "yeah, that's the place where the locker room coach is an open lesbian". Appropriately the same as saying "yeah, that's the school where the girls' locker room coach is a man".. Parents would look elsewhere..
So basically, instead of caring about facts or consistent policy, you'll just pick some reason, any reason, to try and justify discriminating against homosexuals. Got it.She was a math teacher. She was caught kissing her girlfriend in a car. During the next four years she was denied promotion and eventually fired. Ivy Tech is denying they fired her because she's a lesbian.Imagine the damage to the school if the word got out "yeah, that's the place where the locker room coach is an open lesbian". Appropriately the same as saying "yeah, that's the school where the girls' locker room coach is a man".. Parents would look elsewhere..
So on campus she was making out with her lesbian pal in a car. Maybe the school doesn't want that type of behavior in its employees? Deviant sex acts though they may be legal, are not permissible in certain climates. Drinking booze is legal. So is bulimia. But "open drunks" and "open bulimics" might not have a place on certain campuses where decorum and values matter to parents sending their young people there TO BE EDUCATED...and not in the wrong way..
The simple fact is that people can discriminate against BEHAVIORS they don't want on their school grounds. You may like lesbian deviant lifestyles, but parents of children do not. And this is how the school makes its money: by the amount of students they can get on their rolls. This lifestyle question will continue. Again, legal to drink, legal to do gay sex acts, legal to have bulimia...but not appropriate in all situations.
Read ALL of my last post, not just the parts you want people to feel sorry for you about..So basically, instead of caring about facts or consistent policy, you'll just pick some reason, any reason, to try and justify discriminating against homosexuals. Got it.
But tell you what.....I would agree with her being fired IF AND ONLY IF, she would have been fired for the same thing if she was heterosexual and had been making out with a man.
Under what circumstances/facts would you DISAGREE with her being fired for homosexuality?
I read the whole thing. There is nothing to indicate what circumstances would make you think she was unjustly fired.Read ALL of my last post, not just the parts you want people to feel sorry for you about..So basically, instead of caring about facts or consistent policy, you'll just pick some reason, any reason, to try and justify discriminating against homosexuals. Got it.
But tell you what.....I would agree with her being fired IF AND ONLY IF, she would have been fired for the same thing if she was heterosexual and had been making out with a man.
Under what circumstances/facts would you DISAGREE with her being fired for homosexuality?
I read the whole thing. There is nothing to indicate what circumstances would make you think she was unjustly fired.
Read what I wrote. I did NOT ask you why you think she SHOULD be fired. I pointed out that you changed your reasons why she should be fired.I read the whole thing. There is nothing to indicate what circumstances would make you think she was unjustly fired.
For making out with her lesbian girlfriend in the parking lot of a school where she works and part of her job description includes "an appropriate influence to young and impressionable minds". Gay behaviors were decriminalized in private via Lawrence. They were not legitimized in every other sphere of life however. That remains up to individual states and employers to grapple with. There is nothing protecting deviant sex addictions in the Constitution...not even a remote insinuation. If one deviant behavior "gains rights" (via improper interpretation of the Constitution) then they all must. Go back and read post 355 one more time..