Homophobic Whitey McWhiteman Mike the dinosaur Pence to endorse Cruz

[Avatar4321]

"Bake that fucking cake, peasant".

Yes. Obey the law.

Keep running back to the how instead of the why, you cheap, dime store hack.

The why is constitutionally clear. Except of course to someone delusional such as yourself.

Except the constitution is clear. The federal government has no say in marriage

That's absolutely false. The Constitution via the Supremacy Clause gives the federal government the power of 'say' in the constitutionality of all state laws.

The bill of rights trump the supremacy clause.

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

You must accept everything I believe in if the law is on my side.

Why are you supporting laws, or supporting making up laws that enforce thought?

Refusing to serve a black man in your restaurant because he's black is not a thought, it's an action.

yes, and a point of sale refusal can be seen possibly as an actual harm. However short of hurt feelings, there is no harm if someone does not want to enter into a contract for an easily acquirable service or product.

You have a case for PA's when it comes to actual PA's, not for contracted services or products.

The degree of harm is not a relevant measure.

Why not? If you are going to force someone to either break their moral code, or go out of business, there has to be an actual government interest caused by a concrete harm to the 'offended" party.

Anything else is just government deciding one person's butthurt is more equal than another person's butthurt.

All he's done is demonstrate a high degree of intolerance. We've all argued that while we don't accept gay marriage, let alone embrace it, we'd never do anything to encumber a person's right to marry, where legal. But no, that isn't good enough. You must embrace everything he espouses, without question, or you must be silence and ridiculed.

The unwillingness to accept any form of dissent is a sure sign of totalitarianism.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Yes. Obey the law.

Keep running back to the how instead of the why, you cheap, dime store hack.

The why is constitutionally clear. Except of course to someone delusional such as yourself.

Except the constitution is clear. The federal government has no say in marriage

That's absolutely false. The Constitution via the Supremacy Clause gives the federal government the power of 'say' in the constitutionality of all state laws.

The bill of rights trump the supremacy clause.

The Supremacy Clause is necessary to the Bill of Rights. Without a Supremacy Clause and the power of judicial review,

states could pass any laws they chose.

 

[Uncensored2008]

[

Hey we've reaching the RWnut meltdown phase of the thread.

Wipe the spittle off your chins and give me one good reason gays should not have equal marriage rights.

Fuck off and die racist.

You spewing racial hatred in no way obligates me to engage your straw man.

You are an irrational, racist pile of shit spewing hatred at others for the color of their skin.

"Whitey McWhitman" was it, Cletus?

 

[martybegan]

Why are you supporting laws, or supporting making up laws that enforce thought?

Refusing to serve a black man in your restaurant because he's black is not a thought, it's an action.

yes, and a point of sale refusal can be seen possibly as an actual harm. However short of hurt feelings, there is no harm if someone does not want to enter into a contract for an easily acquirable service or product.

You have a case for PA's when it comes to actual PA's, not for contracted services or products.

The degree of harm is not a relevant measure.

Why not? If you are going to force someone to either break their moral code, or go out of business, there has to be an actual government interest caused by a concrete harm to the 'offended" party.

Anything else is just government deciding one person's butthurt is more equal than another person's butthurt.

Moral codes aren't sacred. Opposing any mixing of the races has a history of prominence in 'moral code'.

Want more examples of bad moral codes?

They don't have to be sacred, just given consideration when government decides its 1) go against it or 2) be ruined. Not having your feelings hurt doesn't trump actual, documented rights.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Breaking news!

Remember when Pence was on the RWnut short list as presidential material?

Yeah, I know, it's a good joke now.

Bigot.

Well, we didn't have a sign-in requirement for this thread, but for the record, one bigot has signed in.

Is that your response to everything? Bigot and/or homophobe?

It's the appropriate and accurate response when conservatives seek to disadvantage gay Americans through force of law for no other reason than who they are.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Why are you supporting laws, or supporting making up laws that enforce thought?

Refusing to serve a black man in your restaurant because he's black is not a thought, it's an action.

yes, and a point of sale refusal can be seen possibly as an actual harm. However short of hurt feelings, there is no harm if someone does not want to enter into a contract for an easily acquirable service or product.

You have a case for PA's when it comes to actual PA's, not for contracted services or products.

The degree of harm is not a relevant measure.

Why not? If you are going to force someone to either break their moral code, or go out of business, there has to be an actual government interest caused by a concrete harm to the 'offended" party.

Anything else is just government deciding one person's butthurt is more equal than another person's butthurt.

All he's done is demonstrate a high degree of intolerance. We've all argued that while we don't accept gay marriage, let alone embrace it, we'd never do anything to encumber a person's right to marriage. But no, that isn't good enough. You must embrace everything he espouses, without question, or you must be silence and ridiculed.

The unwillingness to accept any form of dissent is a sure sign of totalitarianism.

You'd never do anything to encumber a gay person's right to same sex marriage?

LOLOL, my prophecy begins to see fulfillment.

A while back after gay marriage won in court I predicted that years from now, the Right would claim marriage equality was THEIR idea.

lol, this was sooner than I expected.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Refusing to serve a black man in your restaurant because he's black is not a thought, it's an action.

yes, and a point of sale refusal can be seen possibly as an actual harm. However short of hurt feelings, there is no harm if someone does not want to enter into a contract for an easily acquirable service or product.

You have a case for PA's when it comes to actual PA's, not for contracted services or products.

The degree of harm is not a relevant measure.

Why not? If you are going to force someone to either break their moral code, or go out of business, there has to be an actual government interest caused by a concrete harm to the 'offended" party.

Anything else is just government deciding one person's butthurt is more equal than another person's butthurt.

Moral codes aren't sacred. Opposing any mixing of the races has a history of prominence in 'moral code'.

Want more examples of bad moral codes?

They don't have to be sacred, just given consideration when government decides its 1) go against it or 2) be ruined. Not having your feelings hurt doesn't trump actual, documented rights.

Yes it does. Equal treatment under the law is equal treatment under the law.

 

[G.T.]

"gays are icky" is an age thing.

its weining itself off correctly, its not a worry.

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

Breaking news!

Remember when Pence was on the RWnut short list as presidential material?

Yeah, I know, it's a good joke now.

Bigot.

Well, we didn't have a sign-in requirement for this thread, but for the record, one bigot has signed in.

Is that your response to everything? Bigot and/or homophobe?

It's the appropriate and accurate response when conservatives seek to disadvantage gay Americans through force of law for no other reason than who they are.

Who's seeking to disadvantage anyone? Are you ever relevant?

 

[martybegan]

yes, and a point of sale refusal can be seen possibly as an actual harm. However short of hurt feelings, there is no harm if someone does not want to enter into a contract for an easily acquirable service or product.

You have a case for PA's when it comes to actual PA's, not for contracted services or products.

The degree of harm is not a relevant measure.

Why not? If you are going to force someone to either break their moral code, or go out of business, there has to be an actual government interest caused by a concrete harm to the 'offended" party.

Anything else is just government deciding one person's butthurt is more equal than another person's butthurt.

Moral codes aren't sacred. Opposing any mixing of the races has a history of prominence in 'moral code'.

Want more examples of bad moral codes?

They don't have to be sacred, just given consideration when government decides its 1) go against it or 2) be ruined. Not having your feelings hurt doesn't trump actual, documented rights.

Yes it does. Equal treatment under the law is equal treatment under the law.

No, it doesn't. If you are arguing an absolutist view of equal treatment, then If I gave a Benz Dealer $5 for a car, he would have to give it to me.

 

[Uncensored2008]

States are obligated to keep their laws constitutional. Deny that.

And?

The Constitution says nothing about marriage, much less the superiority of teh ghey.

But then, I don't really give a shit about your idiotic promotion of homosexuality. I went after your open racism, which is part and parcel of your filthy, racist party.

ANY white person voting for the openly racist democrats is no different than a Jew who voted for Hitler.

It is insane for vote for people who openly and incessantly spew hatred at you..

We get it, you hate white people, you made your point.

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

Refusing to serve a black man in your restaurant because he's black is not a thought, it's an action.

yes, and a point of sale refusal can be seen possibly as an actual harm. However short of hurt feelings, there is no harm if someone does not want to enter into a contract for an easily acquirable service or product.

You have a case for PA's when it comes to actual PA's, not for contracted services or products.

The degree of harm is not a relevant measure.

Why not? If you are going to force someone to either break their moral code, or go out of business, there has to be an actual government interest caused by a concrete harm to the 'offended" party.

Anything else is just government deciding one person's butthurt is more equal than another person's butthurt.

All he's done is demonstrate a high degree of intolerance. We've all argued that while we don't accept gay marriage, let alone embrace it, we'd never do anything to encumber a person's right to marriage. But no, that isn't good enough. You must embrace everything he espouses, without question, or you must be silence and ridiculed.

The unwillingness to accept any form of dissent is a sure sign of totalitarianism.

You'd never do anything to encumber a gay person's right to same sex marriage?

LOLOL, my prophecy begins to see fulfillment.

A while back after gay marriage won in court I predicted that years from now, the Right would claim marriage equality was THEIR idea.

lol, this was sooner than I expected.

What does this have to do with anything I posted?

Stop already.

 

[Avatar4321]

Except the constitution is clear. The federal government has no say in marriage

If there is one thing that racist fuck NYC hates more than white people, it's the US Constitution.

States are obligated to keep their laws constitutional. Deny that.

And since the federal government has no authority to regulate marriages their laws are not unconstitutional

 

[martybegan]

yes, and a point of sale refusal can be seen possibly as an actual harm. However short of hurt feelings, there is no harm if someone does not want to enter into a contract for an easily acquirable service or product.

You have a case for PA's when it comes to actual PA's, not for contracted services or products.

The degree of harm is not a relevant measure.

Why not? If you are going to force someone to either break their moral code, or go out of business, there has to be an actual government interest caused by a concrete harm to the 'offended" party.

Anything else is just government deciding one person's butthurt is more equal than another person's butthurt.

All he's done is demonstrate a high degree of intolerance. We've all argued that while we don't accept gay marriage, let alone embrace it, we'd never do anything to encumber a person's right to marriage. But no, that isn't good enough. You must embrace everything he espouses, without question, or you must be silence and ridiculed.

The unwillingness to accept any form of dissent is a sure sign of totalitarianism.

You'd never do anything to encumber a gay person's right to same sex marriage?

LOLOL, my prophecy begins to see fulfillment.

A while back after gay marriage won in court I predicted that years from now, the Right would claim marriage equality was THEIR idea.

lol, this was sooner than I expected.

What does this have to do with anything I posted?

Stop already.

it's all they have. The whole world is "BlackWhite" to them. either you support their views, methods and everything else 100% of they just go and use every label they can on you.

It's a lack of intellectual ability combined with an inherent narcissism.

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

The degree of harm is not a relevant measure.

Why not? If you are going to force someone to either break their moral code, or go out of business, there has to be an actual government interest caused by a concrete harm to the 'offended" party.

Anything else is just government deciding one person's butthurt is more equal than another person's butthurt.

All he's done is demonstrate a high degree of intolerance. We've all argued that while we don't accept gay marriage, let alone embrace it, we'd never do anything to encumber a person's right to marriage. But no, that isn't good enough. You must embrace everything he espouses, without question, or you must be silence and ridiculed.

The unwillingness to accept any form of dissent is a sure sign of totalitarianism.

You'd never do anything to encumber a gay person's right to same sex marriage?

LOLOL, my prophecy begins to see fulfillment.

A while back after gay marriage won in court I predicted that years from now, the Right would claim marriage equality was THEIR idea.

lol, this was sooner than I expected.

What does this have to do with anything I posted?

Stop already.

it's all they have. The whole world is "BlackWhite" to them. either you support their views, methods and everything else 100% of they just go and use every label they can on you.

It's a lack of intellectual ability combined with an inherent narcissism.

And they're always the smart ones yet they seem incapable of holding two competing thoughts in their heads.

 

[Avatar4321]

Except the constitution is clear. The federal government has no say in marriage

If there is one thing that racist fuck NYC hates more than white people, it's the US Constitution.

States are obligated to keep their laws constitutional. Deny that.

Yeah, so why does it take me $1000 and 3-6 months of bullshit, plus the permission of NYPD to get a handgun permit for my own home?

By your reasoning, it's because the states can do whatever they want.

By normal reasoning, challenge the law in court and find out.

The states can do as they want so long as the federal government has not been given authority to legislate in that area

 

[PredFan]

Breaking news!

Remember when Pence was on the RWnut short list as presidential material?

Yeah, I know, it's a good joke now.

Technical foul...
OP....
Using multiple cards at once...
Race Card and Homophobe card....
Two post penalty and loss of credibility...

Tweeeeeeett...

Pence is a homophobic white man. Fact.

Personal foul...
Excessive stupidity and irrelevancy...
This player is ejected from the game.

Twweeeeett!!

 

[PredFan]

Breaking news!

Remember when Pence was on the RWnut short list as presidential material?

Yeah, I know, it's a good joke now.

Technical foul...
OP....
Using multiple cards at once...
Race Card and Homophobe card....
Two post penalty and loss of credibility...

Tweeeeeeett...

Pence is a homophobic white man. Fact.

Really? How so?

You had to ask? He really doesn't need a reason. He's a lefty and thinks that he only has to say a thing and it is true.

 

[PredFan]

Breaking news!

Remember when Pence was on the RWnut short list as presidential material?

Yeah, I know, it's a good joke now.

Technical foul...
OP....
Using multiple cards at once...
Race Card and Homophobe card....
Two post penalty and loss of credibility...

Tweeeeeeett...

Pence is a homophobic white man. Fact.

Really? How so?

He opposes legal same sex marriage doesn't he? That's homophobia. Or, to be fair, it could just be good old fashioned prejudice based on hate.

Oh my God.. whatever dude. You people are wacko. Same old shit, Why can't you accept that not everyone agrees with this? Is Pence denying anyone their right to marry? Is he proposing rounding them all up?

Fear has nothing to do with it except in your tiny, closed mind.

You see? He doesn't need an actual reason. Only his say-so.