Breaking: Justice Kagan Must Recuse Herself From Upcoming Gay Marriage Hearing

[Syriusly]

BTW, I don't think people are so much for gay marriage but feel that if they are against it they could get sued. t.

You can think any crap you want to think.

People are not getting sued because they are 'against gay marriage' they are getting sued for breaking public accomodation laws.

You could tell everyone you know that you hate blacks or you hate Jews or you hate homosexuals and you won't get sued for expressing your private opinion.

But if you run a business and refuse to sell waffles to blacks or Jews or homosexuals- or refuse to sell flowers for an African American wedding or a Jewish wedding or a homosexual wedding- and State law prohibits that kind of discrimination- then you should be concerned about being sued.

 

[mudwhistle]

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?
.

No- thats not what I am saying.

An extreme or irrational fear of or aversion to something:

Homophobia fits both that definition- and you.

The word "or" means as well as. You simply want to expand the definition to make your lie true.

 

[mudwhistle]

BTW, I don't think people are so much for gay marriage but feel that if they are against it they could get sued. t.

You can think any crap you want to think.

People are not getting sued because they are 'against gay marriage' they are getting sued for breaking public accomodation laws.

You could tell everyone you know that you hate blacks or you hate Jews or you hate homosexuals and you won't get sued for expressing your private opinion.

But if you run a business and refuse to sell waffles to blacks or Jews or homosexuals- or refuse to sell flowers for an African American wedding or a Jewish wedding or a homosexual wedding- and State law prohibits that kind of discrimination- then you should be concerned about being sued.

Once again, this is not my opinion. I'm simply playing Devil's advocate.

I suppose you're going to insist on pork being served at the reception. Why not go after a Muslim caterer?

 

[mudwhistle]

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.

I really don't see the difference between a Nazi and a gay-activists .

And that really just explains who you are.

You see no difference between Nazi's who put Jews in concentration camps- and homosexuals who ask that State law be enforced.

Not so much homosexuals, but activists. Zealots. I have no problem with your typical gay. Never have. If the pendulum swings far enough a pie in the face or a death threat will seem tame compared to what they really want to do. I have never met such hateful people outside of terrorists in my life.

 

[Syriusly]

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?
.

No- thats not what I am saying.

An extreme or irrational fear of or aversion to something:

Homophobia fits both that definition- and you.

The word "or" means as well as. You simply want to expand the definition to make your lie true.

An extreme fear of or
irrational fear of or
aversion to something

Seems all three apply to you and homosexuals.

 

[Syriusly]

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.

I really don't see the difference between a Nazi and a gay-activists .

And that really just explains who you are.

You see no difference between Nazi's who put Jews in concentration camps- and homosexuals who ask that State law be enforced.

Not so much homosexuals, but activists. Zealots. I have no problem with your typical gay. Never have. is the pendulum swings far enough a pie in the face or a death threat will seem tame compared to what they really want to do. I have no problem with your typical gay. Never have.

Yet you see no difference between Nazi's who put Jews in concentration camps and homosexuals who ask that State law be enforced.

 

[mudwhistle]

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?
.

No- thats not what I am saying.

An extreme or irrational fear of or aversion to something:

Homophobia fits both that definition- and you.

The word "or" means as well as. You simply want to expand the definition to make your lie true.

An extreme fear of or
irrational fear of or
aversion to something

Seems all three apply to you and homosexuals.

As if what you think even matters. It's clear you're biased to the extreme. I think your judgement is highly suspect.

 

[Syriusly]

BTW, I don't think people are so much for gay marriage but feel that if they are against it they could get sued. t.

You can think any crap you want to think.

People are not getting sued because they are 'against gay marriage' they are getting sued for breaking public accomodation laws.

You could tell everyone you know that you hate blacks or you hate Jews or you hate homosexuals and you won't get sued for expressing your private opinion.

But if you run a business and refuse to sell waffles to blacks or Jews or homosexuals- or refuse to sell flowers for an African American wedding or a Jewish wedding or a homosexual wedding- and State law prohibits that kind of discrimination- then you should be concerned about being sued.

Once again, this is not my opinion. I'm simply playing Devil's advocate.

I suppose you're going to insist on pork being served at the reception. Why not go after a Muslim caterer?

No business is being asked to serve- or do something the business does not do.

If a caterer only serves kosher food for instance- the caterer is not violating any law for refusing to serve a food it does not serve.

If a Muslim caterer refused to cater a Christian wedding because the wedding is Christian- he would be in violation also.

 

[Syriusly]

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?
.

No- thats not what I am saying.

An extreme or irrational fear of or aversion to something:

Homophobia fits both that definition- and you.

The word "or" means as well as. You simply want to expand the definition to make your lie true.

An extreme fear of or
irrational fear of or
aversion to something

Seems all three apply to you and homosexuals.

As if what you think even matters. It's clear you're biased to the extreme. I think your judgement is highly suspect.

And I feel exactly the same about you.

Big whoop.

 

[mudwhistle]

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.

I really don't see the difference between a Nazi and a gay-activists .

And that really just explains who you are.

You see no difference between Nazi's who put Jews in concentration camps- and homosexuals who ask that State law be enforced.

Not so much homosexuals, but activists. Zealots. I have no problem with your typical gay. Never have. is the pendulum swings far enough a pie in the face or a death threat will seem tame compared to what they really want to do. I have no problem with your typical gay. Never have.

Yet you see no difference between Nazi's who put Jews in concentration camps and homosexuals who ask that State law be enforced.

Not every Nazi participated in that. The SS did most of the killing. A better description would be Brownshirters.

 

[mudwhistle]

BTW, I don't think people are so much for gay marriage but feel that if they are against it they could get sued. t.

You can think any crap you want to think.

People are not getting sued because they are 'against gay marriage' they are getting sued for breaking public accomodation laws.

You could tell everyone you know that you hate blacks or you hate Jews or you hate homosexuals and you won't get sued for expressing your private opinion.

But if you run a business and refuse to sell waffles to blacks or Jews or homosexuals- or refuse to sell flowers for an African American wedding or a Jewish wedding or a homosexual wedding- and State law prohibits that kind of discrimination- then you should be concerned about being sued.

Once again, this is not my opinion. I'm simply playing Devil's advocate.

I suppose you're going to insist on pork being served at the reception. Why not go after a Muslim caterer?

No business is being asked to serve- or do something the business does not do.

If a caterer only serves kosher food for instance- the caterer is not violating any law for refusing to serve a food it does not serve.

If a Muslim caterer refused to cater a Christian wedding because the wedding is Christian- he would be in violation also.

Yet gays are the ones making an issue of it. A Christian knows better than to demand that a Muslim serve him against his religious beliefs. You, on the other hand, go out of your way to tromp all over someone else's beliefs.

Yep, fucking Nazis.

 

[Skylar]

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.

I really don't see the difference between a Nazi and a gay-activists .

And that really just explains who you are.

You see no difference between Nazi's who put Jews in concentration camps- and homosexuals who ask that State law be enforced.

Not so much homosexuals, but activists. Zealots. I have no problem with your typical gay. Never have. is the pendulum swings far enough a pie in the face or a death threat will seem tame compared to what they really want to do. I have no problem with your typical gay. Never have.

Yet you see no difference between Nazi's who put Jews in concentration camps and homosexuals who ask that State law be enforced.

Wasn't he the same one that equated a traffic ticket with having one's fundamental right to marry being stripped from them?

Apparently not all analogies are created equally.

 

[mudwhistle]

So you're saying any man who doesn't find another man to be sexy is a homophobe?
.

No- thats not what I am saying.

An extreme or irrational fear of or aversion to something:

Homophobia fits both that definition- and you.

The word "or" means as well as. You simply want to expand the definition to make your lie true.

An extreme fear of or
irrational fear of or
aversion to something

Seems all three apply to you and homosexuals.

As if what you think even matters. It's clear you're biased to the extreme. I think your judgement is highly suspect.

And I feel exactly the same about you.

Big whoop.

I'm a Libra......it's practically impossible.

 

[mudwhistle]

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.

I really don't see the difference between a Nazi and a gay-activists .

And that really just explains who you are.

You see no difference between Nazi's who put Jews in concentration camps- and homosexuals who ask that State law be enforced.

Not so much homosexuals, but activists. Zealots. I have no problem with your typical gay. Never have. is the pendulum swings far enough a pie in the face or a death threat will seem tame compared to what they really want to do. I have no problem with your typical gay. Never have.

Yet you see no difference between Nazi's who put Jews in concentration camps and homosexuals who ask that State law be enforced.

Wasn't he the same one that equated a traffic ticket with having one's fundamental right to marry being stripped from them?

Apparently not all analogies are created equally.

Again, for the reading impaired,....it was a comparison in legality.

Let me explain this for those who cannot figure out for themselves; Some of us were against same-sex marriage because it was against the law, as is running a God damned red light. If it becomes legal then more power to those who want to do it, ... although I'm gonna take extra care when entering an intersection. Point being, there are reasons both were illegal. Valid reasons. None that you or folks like you would ever admit to.

 

[jillian]

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.


>>>>

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 is based either on fear or hatred, usually one that is irrational. Christians were taught from birth that homosexuality is wrong for a reason. I tend to believe that folks hate Christians because of a phobia against being judged or discriminated against.

Laughing.....so a traffic ticket and systematic discrimination against gays and lesbians/the denial of fundamental civil rights is the same thing? That's your latest argument.

No wonder your ilk have lost 44 of 46 cases. You're not exactly bringing your 'A' game at this point.

My ilk?

You mean people that believe in following the law?

Guilty as charged.

that's funny... given you don't understand the law.

 

[Skylar]

I really don't see the difference between a Nazi and a gay-activists .

And that really just explains who you are.

You see no difference between Nazi's who put Jews in concentration camps- and homosexuals who ask that State law be enforced.

Not so much homosexuals, but activists. Zealots. I have no problem with your typical gay. Never have. is the pendulum swings far enough a pie in the face or a death threat will seem tame compared to what they really want to do. I have no problem with your typical gay. Never have.

Yet you see no difference between Nazi's who put Jews in concentration camps and homosexuals who ask that State law be enforced.

Wasn't he the same one that equated a traffic ticket with having one's fundamental right to marry being stripped from them?

Apparently not all analogies are created equally.

Again, for the reading impaired,....it was a comparison in legality.

Given that traffic violations are a crime.....and same sex marriage isn't, its only a demonstration that you have no idea what you're talking about.

There's a reason why your ilk just keep losing: your position is just awful. Its poorly thought through. It uses lousy analogies. Its burdened with fallacious reasoning.

 

[mudwhistle]

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 is based either on fear or hatred, usually one that is irrational. Christians were taught from birth that homosexuality is wrong for a reason. I tend to believe that folks hate Christians because of a phobia against being judged or discriminated against.

Laughing.....so a traffic ticket and systematic discrimination against gays and lesbians/the denial of fundamental civil rights is the same thing? That's your latest argument.

No wonder your ilk have lost 44 of 46 cases. You're not exactly bringing your 'A' game at this point.

My ilk?

You mean people that believe in following the law?

Guilty as charged.

that's funny... given you don't understand the law.

Have you ever read this law you figure I don't understand?

 

[jillian]

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 is based either on fear or hatred, usually one that is irrational. Christians were taught from birth that homosexuality is wrong for a reason. I tend to believe that folks hate Christians because of a phobia against being judged or discriminated against.

Laughing.....so a traffic ticket and systematic discrimination against gays and lesbians/the denial of fundamental civil rights is the same thing? That's your latest argument.

No wonder your ilk have lost 44 of 46 cases. You're not exactly bringing your 'A' game at this point.

My ilk?

You mean people that believe in following the law?

Guilty as charged.

that's funny... given you don't understand the law.

Have you ever read this law you figure I don't understand?

which law would that be? the one that can't force a supreme court justice to recuse herself?

or the fact that same sex marriage is a constitutional issue?

you might want to start with those concepts.

 

[mudwhistle]

And that really just explains who you are.

You see no difference between Nazi's who put Jews in concentration camps- and homosexuals who ask that State law be enforced.

Not so much homosexuals, but activists. Zealots. I have no problem with your typical gay. Never have. is the pendulum swings far enough a pie in the face or a death threat will seem tame compared to what they really want to do. I have no problem with your typical gay. Never have.

Yet you see no difference between Nazi's who put Jews in concentration camps and homosexuals who ask that State law be enforced.

Wasn't he the same one that equated a traffic ticket with having one's fundamental right to marry being stripped from them?

Apparently not all analogies are created equally.

Again, for the reading impaired,....it was a comparison in legality.

Given that traffic violations are a crime.....and same sex marriage isn't, its only a demonstration that you have no idea what you're talking about.

There's a reason why your ilk just keep losing: your position is just awful. Its poorly thought through. It uses lousy analogies. Its burdened with fallacious reasoning.

Not really. A law is a law. Mixed marriages used to be against the law. Serving or transportation of alcohol used to be prohibited. Times change. Get rid of a traffic light and the law becomes moot. Instead use traffic circles like in London. No more need for the law. Simple.

 

[bodecea]

BTW, I don't think people are so much for gay marriage but feel that if they are against it they could get sued. t.

You can think any crap you want to think.

People are not getting sued because they are 'against gay marriage' they are getting sued for breaking public accomodation laws.

You could tell everyone you know that you hate blacks or you hate Jews or you hate homosexuals and you won't get sued for expressing your private opinion.

But if you run a business and refuse to sell waffles to blacks or Jews or homosexuals- or refuse to sell flowers for an African American wedding or a Jewish wedding or a homosexual wedding- and State law prohibits that kind of discrimination- then you should be concerned about being sued.

Once again, this is not my opinion. I'm simply playing Devil's advocate.

I suppose you're going to insist on pork being served at the reception. Why not go after a Muslim caterer?

No business is being asked to serve- or do something the business does not do.

If a caterer only serves kosher food for instance- the caterer is not violating any law for refusing to serve a food it does not serve.

If a Muslim caterer refused to cater a Christian wedding because the wedding is Christian- he would be in violation also.

Yet gays are the ones making an issue of it. A Christian knows better than to demand that a Muslim serve him against his religious beliefs. You, on the other hand, go out of your way to tromp all over someone else's beliefs.

Yep, fucking Nazis.

So...if you went to a Muslim run store and he refused to sure YOU what he normally serves others because of YOUR belief? or YOUR gender? or YOUR race? or YOUR whatever......you would "know better" than to demand that he follow the law?

So....you'd just roll over and take it then. That's you. That's your weakness.