Discussion in 'Politics' started by RWNJ, Dec 5, 2017.
More like you are a lying regressive fool trolling a message board.
I'm an atheist you asshat my belief that a private business has the right to refuse service has nothing to do with religion.
You seem to think you have found a kindred spirit.
Democrats absolutely were slave owners. And Southern Democrats were architects of Jim Crow laws.
Of course both Republicans and Democrats were guilty of lynchings- that happened across the United States.
And Republicans were the party of deporting black people to Africa- and opposing black suffrage
When Republicans say they’re the Party of Lincoln, they don’t mean they’re the party of deporting black people to West Africa, or the party of opposing black suffrage, or the party of allowing states the authority to bar freedmen from migrating there, all options Lincoln considered.
BS. You shouldn't be allowed to discriminate on any kind of human right, that includes, race, gender, religion or sexual orientation.
Where in the US Constitution are sexual orientation behaviors mentioned or insinuated? That's right. Nowhere. No body of the judicial branch of government is allowed to add pivotal brand new language to the US Constitution without Congress first acting to do so.
Next question, where in the US Constitution is race, gender, religion and country of origin mentioned? The 14th. Religion is mentioned in both the 1st & 14th. Not one whit of language refers to deviant sex behaviors. If you maintain that there is language there that does address those behaviors, then polygamists can already legally marry. If they can't, that would violate the (nonexistent) passage you are citing based on arbitrary discrimination. If the majority objects to a deviant sex behavior, according to you, that doesn't matter. Ergo, even if the majority rejects polygamy (attraction to more than one person), it is already legal according to your argument.
You have never actually read the Constitution have you? Of course you haven't.
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
You have never actually read the Constitution have you. The 14th Amendment never mentions gender or religion or country of origin. But it does say that every person- even your hated gays- have equal protection of the laws.
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
Representatives shall be apportioned among the several states according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each state, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the executive and judicial officers of a state, or the members of the legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such state, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such state.
No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any state, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any state legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any state, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.
The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United States nor any state shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void.
No- that is your bizarre argument.
You don't read the Constitution- you don't read the Supreme Court decisions. You just make crap up.
Separate names with a comma.