Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
PhobiaI just don't agree with it because it's wrong. Any phobia, according to Merriam, is fear based other than Homophobia. How do you explain that? Could be an oxymoron, or a made up term, because every other phobia is based in fear or anxiety.
That's false also:
phobia
: an extremely strong dislike or fear of someone or something"
A strong dislike qualifies as a phobia (according to Merriam-Webster) and need not be fear based, note the use of "OR" in the definition.
>>>>>
Same difference....Actually:
Homophobia:
irrational fear of, aversion to, or discrimination against homosexuality or homosexuals.
Homophobia - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary
A desire to discriminate against homosexuals is also homophobia.
>>>>
Very different.
Your definition is based on "hate", when in fact the definition simply calls for a desire to discriminate against. A desire to discriminate need not be born out of "hate".
For example a person may not "hate" homosexuals, but feel - for religious reasons - that they should not be treated the same as heterosexuals under the law. That isn't "hate", but it is a call for discrimination.
>>>>
Nope. They may have been able to make Webster's or Merriam's more PC, but the truth is phobia .
The truth is that we use the term 'homophobia' to describe people who are bigots towards homosexuals.
The truth is that the dictionary reflects the accepted common usage of the English language and the truth is that you just don't like that definition.
I just don't agree with it because it's wrong. Any phobia, according to Merriam, is fear based other than Homophobia. How do you explain that? Could be an oxymoron, or a made up term, because every other phobia is based in fear or anxiety.
What does any of that have to do with the two Justices having to recuse themselves as a matter of their own 2009 Finding on "appearance" or "suspicion" of bias?
This has been explained to you on numerous occasions. You just don't like the answer. Neither Justices are elected or accept campaign contributions making your entire point meaningless. They are not going to recuse themselves from this case on the account of your butt-hurt. Make peace with that fact.
Hell, it would remove the entire purpose of putting them on the court in the first place. This is why Obama wants Ginsburg to retire,....so he can stick another Dyke in her place.
What does any of that have to do with the two Justices having to recuse themselves as a matter of their own 2009 Finding on "appearance" or "suspicion" of bias?
The premise that was argued to successfully win the 2009 case was that no judge should display the appearance of bias, nor give any suspicion of bias to an objective onlooker. The part about campaign contributions could have been about any kind of bias. It just happened to be about that at the time. The successful/Upheld premise applies here.This has been explained to you on numerous occasions. You just don't like the answer. Neither Justices are elected or accept campaign contributions making your entire point meaningless. They are not going to recuse themselves from this case on the account of your butt-hurt. Make peace with that fact.
What does any of that have to do with the two Justices having to recuse themselves as a matter of their own 2009 Finding on "appearance" or "suspicion" of bias?
The premise that was argued to successfully win the 2009 case was that no judge should display the appearance of bias, nor give any suspicion of bias to an objective onlooker. The part about campaign contributions could have been about any kind of bias. It just happened to be about that at the time. The successful/Upheld premise applies here.This has been explained to you on numerous occasions. You just don't like the answer. Neither Justices are elected or accept campaign contributions making your entire point meaningless. They are not going to recuse themselves from this case on the account of your butt-hurt. Make peace with that fact.
Again, there isn't a person on the earth, objective or not, who would say that they think that after seeing Ginsburg and Kagan preside/loom over a gay wedding while the question of whether or not the fed should loom over states defining marriage, that they would vote any other way but for a federal entity looming over redacting the word "marriage' to newly include a coupling that is either absent a mother or a father.
Any judge, anywhere, anytime, any display of overt bias.No, the premise doesn't hold up here b/c neither of them are elected or accept campaign contributions. The only reason you want it to apply here so you can whine about it come June. You're not fooling anybody. You only want them to recuse themselves b/c you don't believe they will vote in your favor. It isn't going to happen. In short, tough shit.
Yet so true......What does any of that have to do with the two Justices having to recuse themselves as a matter of their own 2009 Finding on "appearance" or "suspicion" of bias?
This has been explained to you on numerous occasions. You just don't like the answer. Neither Justices are elected or accept campaign contributions making your entire point meaningless. They are not going to recuse themselves from this case on the account of your butt-hurt. Make peace with that fact.
Hell, it would remove the entire purpose of putting them on the court in the first place. This is why Obama wants Ginsburg to retire,....so he can stick another Dyke in her place.
Speaking of showing bias......
You can say that all day long, but it's as much nonsense as your mother and father argument. Your dogs no longer don't hunt, they were shot and buried so stop digging them up and trying to get them to play fetch.Any judge, anywhere, anytime, any display of overt bias.No, the premise doesn't hold up here b/c neither of them are elected or accept campaign contributions. The only reason you want it to apply here so you can whine about it come June. You're not fooling anybody. You only want them to recuse themselves b/c you don't believe they will vote in your favor. It isn't going to happen. In short, tough shit.
PERIOD. The premise was argued and won. The 2009 law says no judge may show bias. NONE! ever.
Any judge, anywhere, anytime, any display of overt bias.No, the premise doesn't hold up here b/c neither of them are elected or accept campaign contributions. The only reason you want it to apply here so you can whine about it come June. You're not fooling anybody. You only want them to recuse themselves b/c you don't believe they will vote in your favor. It isn't going to happen. In short, tough shit.Ginsburg and Kagan preside/loom over a gay wedding while the question of whether or not the fed should loom over states defining marriage, that they would vote any other way but for a federal entity looming over redacting the word "marriage' to newly include a coupling that is either absent a mother or a father.
Same difference....
Very different.
Your definition is based on "hate", when in fact the definition simply calls for a desire to discriminate against. A desire to discriminate need not be born out of "hate".
For example a person may not "hate" homosexuals, but feel - for religious reasons - that they should not be treated the same as heterosexuals under the law. That isn't "hate", but it is a call for discrimination.
>>>>
Nope. They may have been able to make Webster's or Merriam's more PC, but the truth is phobia .
The truth is that we use the term 'homophobia' to describe people who are bigots towards homosexuals.
The truth is that the dictionary reflects the accepted common usage of the English language and the truth is that you just don't like that definition.
I just don't agree with it because it's wrong. Any phobia, according to Merriam, is fear based other than Homophobia. How do you explain that? Could be an oxymoron, or a made up term, because every other phobia is based in fear or anxiety.
You don't agree with it because you pick and chose what you accept as a definition from Merriam. Phobias do not have to be fear based.
Want other 'phobias'?
Francophobia- marked by a fear or strong dislike of France or French culture or customs
Xenophobia- Intense or irrational dislike or fear of people from other countries.
Oxford says that phobias are:
An extreme or irrational fear of or aversion to something:
Homophobia fits both that definition- and you.
Any judge, anywhere, anytime, any display of overt bias.No, the premise doesn't hold up here b/c neither of them are elected or accept campaign contributions. The only reason you want it to apply here so you can whine about it come June. You're not fooling anybody. You only want them to recuse themselves b/c you don't believe they will vote in your favor. It isn't going to happen. In short, tough shit.
PERIOD. The premise was argued and won. The 2009 law says no judge may show bias. NONE! ever.
BTW, I don't think people are so much for gay marriage but feel that if they are against it they could get sued.
BTW, I don't think people are so much for gay marriage but feel that if they are against it they could get sued.
You can agree or disagree with anything you'd like. If you're conducting business with the public, however, you may run into State PA laws that prohibit discrimination against customers because of their sexual orientation.
If a religious person wishes to operate a business that serves the public, they have to treat their customers fairly and equally. If their religion prevents this, they may wish to consider another line of work. As they can run afoul of PA laws if they deny service to someone based on their sexual orientation.BTW, I don't think people are so much for gay marriage but feel that if they are against it they could get sued.
You can agree or disagree with anything you'd like. If you're conducting business with the public, however, you may run into State PA laws that prohibit discrimination against customers because of their sexual orientation.
Like I said before, repeatedly I might add.
I have nothing against anyone else doing it. I don't intend to discriminate. Turns out you intend to. Discrimination goes both ways you know. Discrimination for being religious. Discrimination for having principles or morals. You fully condone punishment for anyone who does and there's something amoral about that.
If a religious person wishes to operate a business that serves the public, they have to treat their customers fairly and equally. If their religion prevents this, they may wish to consider another line of work. As they can run afoul of PA laws if they deny service to someone based on their sexual orientation.BTW, I don't think people are so much for gay marriage but feel that if they are against it they could get sued.
You can agree or disagree with anything you'd like. If you're conducting business with the public, however, you may run into State PA laws that prohibit discrimination against customers because of their sexual orientation.
Like I said before, repeatedly I might add.
I have nothing against anyone else doing it. I don't intend to discriminate. Turns out you intend to. Discrimination goes both ways you know. Discrimination for being religious. Discrimination for having principles or morals. You fully condone punishment for anyone who does and there's something amoral about that.
Very different.
Your definition is based on "hate", when in fact the definition simply calls for a desire to discriminate against. A desire to discriminate need not be born out of "hate".
For example a person may not "hate" homosexuals, but feel - for religious reasons - that they should not be treated the same as heterosexuals under the law. That isn't "hate", but it is a call for discrimination.
>>>>
Nope. They may have been able to make Webster's or Merriam's more PC, but the truth is phobia .
The truth is that we use the term 'homophobia' to describe people who are bigots towards homosexuals.
The truth is that the dictionary reflects the accepted common usage of the English language and the truth is that you just don't like that definition.
I just don't agree with it because it's wrong. Any phobia, according to Merriam, is fear based other than Homophobia. How do you explain that? Could be an oxymoron, or a made up term, because every other phobia is based in fear or anxiety.
You don't agree with it because you pick and chose what you accept as a definition from Merriam. Phobias do not have to be fear based.
Want other 'phobias'?
Francophobia- marked by a fear or strong dislike of France or French culture or customs
Xenophobia- Intense or irrational dislike or fear of people from other countries.
Oxford says that phobias are:
An extreme or irrational fear of or aversion to something:
Homophobia fits both that definition- and you.
So you're saying any man who doesn't find another man to be sexy is a homophobe?
.
I really don't see the difference between a Nazi and a gay-activists .If a religious person wishes to operate a business that serves the public, they have to treat their customers fairly and equally. If their religion prevents this, they may wish to consider another line of work. As they can run afoul of PA laws if they deny service to someone based on their sexual orientation.BTW, I don't think people are so much for gay marriage but feel that if they are against it they could get sued.
You can agree or disagree with anything you'd like. If you're conducting business with the public, however, you may run into State PA laws that prohibit discrimination against customers because of their sexual orientation.
Like I said before, repeatedly I might add.
I have nothing against anyone else doing it. I don't intend to discriminate. Turns out you intend to. Discrimination goes both ways you know. Discrimination for being religious. Discrimination for having principles or morals. You fully condone punishment for anyone who does and there's something amoral about that.
